FINAL MANUSCRIPT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

Running head: GENDER, RACE AND RATINGS OF SAFETY ON CAMPUS 1
The Relation between Gender and Race on Ratings of Perceived Safety on Dominican
University’s Campus
By: Mairead McKenna

Abstract
Who feels safe, where, and why? Past research has unveiled the breadth and complexity of
perceived safety as a construct (Culbertson, Vik, and Kooiman, 2009; Steinmetz and Austin,
2014; Van Brunschot, Laurendeau, and Keown, 2009). Though the intricacy of this concept has
been brought to light, further research is necessary to fill important gaps in the literature,
particularly in reference to demographic variables. I intended to expand upon the areas currently
lacking in the research pertaining to perceptions of safety in the campus setting. This study
aimed to measure individuals' perceived safety on Dominican University's campus as it is
influenced by both gender identity and race, and mediated by perceived control. Participants
completed an online questionnaire designed to assess perceived behavioral control, defined as
predictability of behavior; and perceived safety at night in 21 locations on Dominican
University’s campus. These results were assessed according to the demographic information
provided by participants, so as to investigate potential gender- and race-related differences. It
was predicted that feminine individuals would feel less safe than masculine individuals, and that
people of Color would feel less safe than Whites. Perceived control was predicted to mediate this
relationship, such that the more predictable individuals view others' behavior to be, the safer they
feel; regardless of race or gender identity. The goal was to begin to understand who feels safe,
where, and why, with the hopes of addressing safety concerns on Dominican University’s
campus.

The Relation between Gender and Race on Ratings of Perceived Safety on Dominican
University’s Campus
What does it mean to feel safe? It’s a seemingly simple question. Feeling safe, after all,
is a necessity for human survival. At the very basis of each individual’s unique experience, the
goal is to stay alive; to do so, one must have access to safe spaces. Access to such spaces is
complicated by contemporary human experience; to the rest of the animal kingdom, safety
simply means escaping the possibility of being eaten by a potential predator. Being at the top of
the food chain, humans don’t have to fear such experiences. Safety, thus, is presented in an
intrinsic manner, allowing it to be taken for granted by some and sought after by others. Who is
capable of taking safety for granted is dependent upon identity; in a society in which identity has
bred inequity between peoples, it makes sense that such disparity also exists when considering
perceptions of safety. Thus, investigation as to why individuals feel safe, and what makes them
feel safe, is crucial to creating environments in which all people can live without perceiving their
livelihood to be at risk.
The potential breadth of perceptions of safety has made defining the ambit of the
construct rather difficult. Perceived safety, according to the literature, has been defined by a
multitude of concepts such as perceived fear of crime, anxiety, and risk perception (Culbertson,
Vik, and Kooiman, 2001). Perceptions of safety have also been found to impact behaviors in
various domains, especially precautionary behaviors (Van Brunschot, Laurendeau, and Keown,
2009); furthermore perceived safety has been shown to vary as a result of the physical
characteristics of specific locations (Steinmetz and Austin, 2014). So, safety can be defined
using conceptual variables as well as specific physical characteristics of a location, while

defining the behaviors of others. Creating a simple model, consequently, likely require a great
synthesis of ideas.
A simple model of safety was, however, created and accepted until recently. Past
research focused primarily, upon the comparison of subjective fear and objective risk, thereby
creating what is now understood as a “false dualism” between fear and risk; it was thought that if
individuals were to become less focused on their subjective perception of risk and better
informed of their likelihood of victimization, or their objective risk, they would be less fearful
(Steinmetz and Austin, 2014). However, this model is oversimplified in that it does not take into
account the cultural and individual factors that influence fear of crime, and perceptions of safety.
The true complexity of perceived safety is brought to light when one considers the broad range
of variables that influence such perceptions. An individual’s perceptions of fear and further,
safety, are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including demographic and personal factors,
and past experience.
Gender identity, in particular, has been shown to influence perceptions of safety. Despite
the fact that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime, prior research indicates that
women are more fearful of violent crime (Lane, Gover, and Dahod, 2009). The “Shadow of
Sexual Assault Hypothesis” attempts to explain these differences (Ferraro, 1995). Though men
are statistically more likely to be victims of a broad range of violent crime, such as being
mugged or beaten, they are nevertheless less likely to be the victims of sexual assault and
intimate partner violence. The shadow hypothesis proposes that women’s fear of sexual assault
overshadows their fear of all violent crime, creating a greater sense of fear within women. Fisher
and Sloan (2003) further tested this hypothesis amongst university women, and found that fear of
rape strongly predicts women’s fear of crime, even when controlling for factors such as time of

day. These findings allow for a possible qualitative explanation for the quantitative differences
demonstrated between men and women.
Though the attention given to gender differences has proven valuable to understanding
safety, there is a dearth in the literature pertaining to other aspects of identity. It is important to
note that gender identity has been presented as a binary framework: gender of participants was
assumed to align with their physical sex. Though gender identity has been widely conceptualized
according to the masculine-feminine binary, masculinity and femininity exist on a continuum.
Many individuals, thus, identify on the gender spectrum, or otherwise, outside of the gender
binary (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2012). Given that gender is a societal
construct, and the binary is widely reinforced in Western societies, people who identify outside
of the binary are likely to have different perceptions of safety. However, research has neglected
to address the perceived safety of individuals who do not neatly categorize themselves within the
binary. It is of importance to include a spectrum of gender identities when assessing perceptions
of safety, so as to represent these identities in the research and assess their needs accordingly.
Race has been largely neglected by the literature on perceived safety. Day (1998)
addresses this lack in the research literature, calling attention to the fact that fear as a concept has
wholly been constructed from White experience. She posits that the failure to consider race as a
variable is an injustice to society as well as psychological science; not only does its absence
reinforce prejudice, but it allows for continued ignorance of the potentially significant
relationship between race and fear. Members of minority populations experience risk differently
than Whites, and therefore may perceive different locations and situations as threatening. This
perceived threat as experienced by minority populations lends itself to behavioral restrictions and
self-isolation, thereby, creating the notion of stereotypical “others” who are both “feared and

fearful” (Pain, 2000 as cited by Steinmetz and Austin, 2014). According to the study conducted
by Pain (2000), Black individuals reported higher levels of concern for safety than did Whites.
Essentially, in a society where whiteness has been valued and normed, People of Color exist in
an environment conducive to threat. Not only do they live outside the constructed “norm”, which
is stressful as is, People of Color have historically been demonized, and constructed to be feared.
Unfortunately, this mentality is still existent today, and People of Color have to live not only
with that knowledge, but in consideration of the aggressive behaviors such a prejudiced mindset
may elicit from others. Whiteness, hence, is equivalent to safety; feelings of safety are a privilege
that not all races and ethnicities of people can or do enjoy similarly. These differences are vital to
understanding, and further, creating a generalizable model of perceived safety.
Additionally, investigation of potential personality characteristics, such as perceived
control, may prove to further fill the gaps in the understanding of perceived safety. Crime,
especially violent crime, introduces another individual to the equation, the offender, whose
actions cannot be controlled (Van Brunschot et al., 2009). This lack of control may very well
contribute to a sense of vulnerability ultimately leading to a lack of perceived safety.
Nonetheless, perceived control is a variable seldom considered within the construct of safety.
Though the effects of perceived control may be seemingly obvious in reference to safety, it is
worth further exploration. If perceptions of control were found to enhance one’s perceptions of
safety, additional work could be done to promote a sense of control in individuals that may work
to circumvent any lack of safety they may perceive as a result of identity.
Where exactly does one choose to conduct research pertaining to safety? Society as a
whole would benefit from an improved understanding of safety, but unfortunately, gaining the
participation of an entire population is a goal often out of reach. Thus, it can be argued that

institutions who aim to create safe spaces, such as university campuses, are prevalent for study.
Statistics relevant to prevalence of crime on campus have been notoriously contradictory, and
thus there is confusion surrounding campus safety for students. According to Woolnough (2009),
students who are fearful on campus have very different experiences compared to those who do
not. Fearing for one’s safety may very well impact the quality of an individual’s learning
experience; the stress of safety concerns detracts from one’s focus on their education. Student’s
perceptions of safety on campus have important security implications that should be of interest to
administrators, campus police, staff, and student organizations. It is in the best interest of
educational institutions to establish a safe learning environment for all students. Furthermore,
college campuses present a unique environment: young adults, living on a small campus
constantly surrounded by their peers. University campuses can potentially be considered as a
microcosm of society, and thus, are a good starting point for studying safety.
In sum, psychological science is yet to develop a generalizable model of perceived safety,
which may be due to the dearth in the literature pertaining to identity and personality
characteristics. Safety, however, is not a concept that is exclusive to a specific population: safety
is essential to all survival. Perhaps, defining the major differences in perceptions of safety that
exist between people, may prove useful for determining potential similarities in how different
people experience safety in their lives.
The goal of the present study is to assess individuals' perceived safety on Dominican
University's campus and to investigate whether these perceptions are influenced by gender
identity and race or ethnicity. I aimed to test the extent to which any gender-, race-, or ethnicity-
related differences in perceptions of safety could be explained by differences in perceived
predictability of other’s behavior. Participants first completed a questionnaire designed to assess

perceived control; specifically, they completed a subscale of an existing measure designed to
assess predictability of others’ behavior (Collins, 1973). In addition, participants viewed a series
of photographs of locations on the Dominican University campus, and rated their familiarity as
well as their perceived safety in these locations. Lastly, participants answered an open-ended
question in which they were asked to expand upon the ratings they made. These results will be
assessed according to the demographics provided by the participants, so as to investigate the pre-
existing relationship between gender identity and safety. In addition, I assessed the relationship
between participant race and safety. It was expected that feminine individuals would feel less
safe than masculine individuals, and that People of Color would feel less safe than White
individuals. These gender, racial and ethnic differences were hypothesized to be accounted for
by perceived control, such that feminine individuals, for example, feel less safe because they feel
less control than do masculine individuals. The goal is to begin to understand who feels safe,
where, and why; with the hopes of adding to the literature as well as addressing student
perceived safety on Dominican university's campus.
Method
Participants
The obtained sample consisted of 82 undergraduate students attending Dominican
University. Subjects were recruited for this study using SONA, Dominican University’s research
participation and recruitment program, in addition to other convenience sampling methods.
Participants completed an online survey, constructed and distributed via Qualtrics. The average
age of participants was 20 years of age (SD = 2.24). Nearly half the participants in the sample
were Freshmen, 41.6%; while the remaining participants were made up of 18% Sophomores,
24.7% Juniors, and 19.5% Seniors. One participant chose not to declare their grade level. The

majority of participants, 88.6%, identified as Heterosexual, while 2.5% identified as
Homosexual, 6.3% identified as Bisexual, one participant identified as other (Pansexual), and
one participant chose not to declare. In terms of sex assigned at birth, 15.2% of participants
reported male, 83.5 % reported female, and one subject chose not to declare. The majority of the
participants identified as Cis-feminine, 80.3%, followed by Cis-masculine, 14.5%. Of all the
subjects, 2.6% identified as other, and the remaining 2.6% of participants chose not to declare,
making up the final 2.6% of the sample. The majority of participants identified as
Hispanic/Latino, 60.8%, while 27.8% identified as White/ Non-Hispanic, 6.3% identified as
African American/Black, and 5.1% identified as Asian. The study took approximately 20
minutes to complete. Participants were given credit for their participation in courses that offered
credit.
Materials and Procedure
This study was descriptive in nature, and incorporated a mixed methods design. The
tools employed in this research are presented in the form of online questionnaires, constructed
and distributed via Qualtrics.
Predictability of others’ behavior. The measure of predictability of others’ behavior
was adapted from the Predictability of Behavior subscale of a pre-existing measure of perceived
control (Collins, 1973) (see Appendix B). The brief questionnaire consists of eight items and
included questions such as “I think that it is very hard to predict how people are going to
behave,” and responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where (1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree). The items in this questionnaire were randomized upon administration
so as to control for order effects and to keep participants’ attention. The scale appears to have

face validity, however results of a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis suggest the instrument
was not reliable enough to use in the current study.
Perceived safety. The instrument for measuring perceived safety on campus incorporated
elements of two pre-existing measurements of safety (see Appendix C). The visual framework of
the questionnaire was adopted from an instrument developed by Steinmetz, and Austin (2013),
which also measured perceived safety on campus. The adapted instrument included photographs
of 21 campus locations at night; the visual framework of this questionnaire was modified from a
study conducted by which also studied perceived safety on campus. Photographs are presented
one at a time in conjunction with two questions: one addressing participant familiarity with the
location: “Are you familiar with this location?” responses for which are given in a Yes/No
format. The other addresses the perceived safety participants’ associate with the location by
asking, “If you were alone in this location, how would you feel?” Safety is measured using a 7-
point Likert-type scale developed by Culbertson et al. (2009), where (1 = Completely Unsafe and
7 = Completely Safe). The photographs employed for this measure were captured in daylight and
edited to appear as if taken at night.
The final item included in this measure addresses participants’ reasoning in terms of
potential safety concerns, by asking, “Please tell us about the ratings you made. For example, if
you rated a location as one in which you would feel safe, why? If you rated a location as one
where you would feel less safe, why?” A space is provided for participants to respond as they see
fit. This item was included in order to assess qualitative differences in safety, and is formatted to
be open-ended so as to gain a more detailed understanding of participants’ specific safety
concerns.

Demographics. After completing the measure of perceived safety, participants will be
directed to the demographics form, which asks them to indicate their age, assigned sex at birth,
self-identified gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and grade level. Self-identified gender,
sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity all include the option to respond “Other” and a space to
specify in an open-ended format. Participants will also be presented with the option, “Prefer Not
to Declare” in the case that they do not wish to disclose such information about themselves. This
instrument was adapted from a commonly used standard demographics form, the author of which
is unknown. The instrument was further developed for the purposes of this research to be
comprehensive, including a wider variety of demographics questions; and inclusive, offering
supplementary response options. The demographics questionnaire was administered last in order
to rule out instances of stereotype threat.
Results
The present research sought to test three initial hypotheses. First, it was predicted that
there would be gender differences in perceptions of safety, such that feminine-identified
participants were expected to report lower safety ratings overall than masculine-identified
participants. Similarly, participants of Color were predicted to feel less safe in comparison to
White participants. Finally, perceived control as expected to act as a mediator for both
hypothesized relationships. Any observed gender, racial and ethnic differences were predicted to
be explained for by perceived control; specifically, predictability of others’ behavior. For
instance, feminine-identified individuals may feel less safe because they feel less control than to
masculine-identified individuals. Due to experimenter error, the internal reliability of the control
measure was too low to be considered useful, and thus was excluded from analyses.

The objective was to investigate who feels safe and where. In order to assess where
participants felt safe, the reported safety ratings were summed across all participants for each
location. The sums are displayed as a Pareto graph (see Figure 1.1). Further analysis indicated
the people felt the most safe indoors, and least safe in outdoor locations. The majority of
locations that elicited higher levels of safety are indoors or near an entrance, consisting of five
wholly indoor locations, five locations in close proximity to an entrance, and one outdoor
location. In contrast, outdoor locations, including four images of parking lots, four outdoor
walkways, and two images within the parking garage were perceived as less safe, by and large.
A scale score was computed to represent the mean safety ratings. The pattern of data
indicates that safety is somewhat bimodal (see Figure 2). The variable consisted of safety ratings
from 79 participants (N = 79), with an average safety rating of 4.91 (SD = 1.14). Thus, on
average, respondents reported neutral to moderate levels of safety across locations.
A cross tabulation analysis was run between sex and gender in order to ascertain the
extent to which self-identified gender correlated with physical sex. Results indicate that self-
identified gender effectively mapped onto sex assigned at birth for the majority of participants:
out of the 76 total participants in the analysis, 11 male subjects identified as Cis-Masculine and
60 female subjects identified as Cis-Feminine. One male participant chose not to declare their
self-identified gender, while two females chose to identify as other and one female participant
chose not to declare.
Given the results of the cross tabulation analysis, it was acceptable to run an independent
samples t-test for the variables of sex and safety to determine gender-related differences in
perceptions of safety. Unsurprisingly, women reported feeling less safe (M = 4.80, SD = 1.15)
than their male counterparts (M = 5.62, SD = .74). An independent samples t-test indicated that

this difference was statistically significant and had a large effect, t (76) = 2.34, p < .05, 95% CI
[.12, 1.50], d = 0.54.
In order to assess any race-related differences in reported levels of safety, a one-way
between groups ANOVA was conducted. Results demonstrated little variance between groups
and a one-way between groups ANOVA indicated that any differences were not statistically
significant, (F (3, 75) = 1.44, p = .24). White individuals reported to feel the most safe on
average (M = 5.30, SD = 1.06), followed by Asian individuals (M = 5.20, SD = .56), Latino
individuals (M = 4.75, SD = 1.19), and Black individuals (M = 4.59, SD = .98).
To further investigate race related difference in reported levels of safety, a one-way
between groups ANOVA was conducted for comparison between the two groups that were most
well represented: White and Latino individuals. Thought White participants did report higher
levels of safety on average (M = 5.30, SD = 1.06) than did Latino participants (M = 4.75, SD =
1.19), the one-way between groups ANOVA was not statistically significant, (F (1, 68) = 3.49, p
= .066).
Also worthy of analysis is the relationship between participant familiarity with a location
and reported levels of safety. Participants were asked to indicate familiarity with a location in a
Yes/ No format. Frequencies were run on reported familiarity for each location. Though most
participants reported being familiar with all of the locations, there were few locations with
notable discrepancies. One such location is the Parmer lot, where 17 participants reported being
unfamiliar. Participants who reported familiarity felt more safe on average (M = 4.56, SD = 1.58)
than did participants who were not familiar (M = 4.12, SD = 1.27). Results of an independent
samples t-test, however, indicated that this was not a statistically significant difference, t (76) =
1.06, p > .05, 95% CI [-.39, 1.27]. Another location, where 16 participants reported being

unfamiliar, is the enclosed walkway from Lewis Hall to the dorms. Participants who reported
familiarity with this location felt more safe on average (M = 5.47, SD = 1.50) than did
participants who were not familiar (M = 3.56, SD = 1.26). Results of an independent samples t-
test indicate this difference was statistically significant t (76) = 4.66, p < .05, 95% CI [1.09,
2.72]. Thus, these results demonstrate that familiarity is only sometimes correlated with safety.
Last, responses to the open-ended question on the Perceived Safety questionnaire were
examined in an effort to gain better understanding of potential qualitative differences in reported
ratings of safety. A content analysis was conducted, for which responses were coded for the
presence of three themes: light/dark, familiarity/unfamiliarity, and indoor/outdoor. An initial
interrater reliability analysis indicated substantial reliability by Landis and Koch’s criteria for
presence of light (κ = .78), outstanding reliability for familiarity (κ = .88), and substantial
reliability for proximity to the indoors (κ = .73). All discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
Out of the 58 total responses, 39.7% of respondents cited presence of light; 32.8% cited
familiarity and 31% cited proximity to the indoors. Thus, the results demonstrate that the
presence of light, familiarity, and proximity to indoor locations are all potential factors
influencing reported safety ratings.
Discussion
The goal of the present study was to expand upon what is already known about safety as
a construct as well as address the dearth in the literature relevant to personal identity. A visually-
focused measure of perceived safety was developed in order to assess reported levels of
familiarity and safety in various campus locations; results were analyzed according to both
gender and racial identity, and the aim was to assess the extent to which gender- and race-related
differences in perceptions of safety could be explained by predictability of others’ behavior. It

was predicted that feminine individuals would report feeling less safe than masculine individuals
and that people of color would report feeling less safe than white individuals.
Safety is necessary for humans to thrive, and thus, it is especially relevant to college
campuses and other educational settings. Comfort in academic setting is essential to fostering
students’ greatest academic potential; fearing for one’s well-being certainly detract from their
capabilities as a student. Unfortunately, safety, as a construct, has been exceptionally difficult to
define. The literature has defined safety by use of conceptual variables, such as fear and anxiety
(Culbertson et al., 2001), as well as physical characteristics of a location (Steinmetz & Austin,
2014). A study conducted by Van Brunschot et al. (2009) also suggested that perceptions of
safety have influence on behaviors in various domains. Safety, as such, has demonstrated its
complexity through research in that it is both influenced by a multitude of possible variables and
has influence on personal experience.
However, research by Steinmetz and Austin (2014) suggests that much of the previous
literature is reliant upon and oversimplified model of perceived safety. This model generated an
understanding of safety that depended only on discrepancies between subjective fear and
objective risk, effectively ignoring potential cultural and individual difference variables that
likely factor into perceptions of safety. One potential individual identity variable that has
demonstrated influence on perceptions of safety is gender identity: women have repeatedly been
found to be more fearful than men, despite the fact that men are the more probable victims of a
host of violent crime (Lane et al., 2009). Though these gender-related findings are indispensable,
they are not representative of the gender spectrum. Gender was assumed to align with physical
sex and was conceptualized by use of the masculine-feminine gender binary; gender identity,

however, is not reliant on physical sex and many individuals who exist outside of the binary have
been neglected in the research (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2012).
In this particular sample, physical sex and gender were near perfectly correlated. Though
minimal, variability did exist within the sample, suggesting that a small proportion of subjects
identify outside the binary. Analysis of the relation between physical sex and safety ratings
indicated women, on average, reported feeling less safe compared to their male counterparts.
Such results support those of past research as well as our initial hypothesis. Men were largely
underrepresented in this sample, yet there was far more variability present within the larger
sample of women. Perhaps, this indicates a lack of construct validity in reference to perceived
safety. Nevertheless, results must be interpreted with considerable caution.
Additionally, the relationship between race and perceived safety is largely absent. Day
(1998) suggests that fear as a concept has been constructed almost entirely from white
experience. In a society in which whiteness is valued, whiteness is subsequently equated with
safety. As a result, safety is a privilege not accessible to people of all races; thus, different racial
groups are likely to define and experience safety differently. Differences in perceptions of safety
may also be due to personality characteristics such as perceived control, especially when
considering instances of violent crime (Van Brunschot et al., 2009). It was the aim of the present
study to assess the role perceived control plays in this relationship, and though support could not
be found for the proposed hypothesis, it is certainly still an area worthy of future investigation.
Obviously, many situations lie entirely outside of one’s control and one should never be blamed
for such instances. Perceptions of safety are studied in order to understand how safety concerns
affect one’s daily life, and how to structure environments to be conducive to safety. Likewise,
perceived control is studied in this specific relationship in order to find ways in which to bolster

perceptions of safety in otherwise neutral settings. Findings would not be extended to explain
situations where one is powerless, but instead, to explain how to foster a healthy sense of control
in instances it’s possible, with the hopes of helping people feel safe. When entire subgroups of a
population are more inclined to feelings of fear and threat, it is pertinent to seek ways in which to
limit those negative perceptions, for their well-being.
Sufficient support was not found for the racial hypothesis proposed in the present study.
Though the data indicated that participants of Color reported lower average safety ratings than
White participants, the differences were not statistically significant. The same was true when
White and Latino students’ ratings were compared. Thus, the results in terms of race-related
differences in perceptions of safety are inconclusive. It is certainly plausible that the lack of
significant results may be due to lack of statistical power. If the study had more power, perhaps
by obtaining a larger sample of participants of Color, it is likely that the mean differences would
be statistically significant.
Likewise, support was not found for the hypothesis that familiarity with a location would
bolster safety ratings. Results of two independent samples t-tests for separate locations, the
Parmer lot and the walkway between Lewis Hall and the dorms, yielded contradictory results. In
light of these results, one can conclude that familiarity and safety are correlated only under
certain circumstances. What circumstances determine this relationship may be determined
through future investigation.
Interestingly, results of an interrater content analysis of the open-ended question on the
perceived safety measure, indicated familiarity as a common theme in participant responses, in
addition to presence of light and proximity to indoor locations. Participants repeatedly cited that
their familiarity with a location was positively correlated with their perceived safety in said

location. Additionally, well-lit locations were cited in the open-ended responses to yield higher
levels of perceived safety; indoor locations were indicated to bolster a sense of safety, as well.
These findings suggest the importance of a location’s physical characteristics when forming
perceptions of safety. Perhaps, the characteristics of a given location would be suited to explain
gender- and race-related differences in perceptions of safety observed in future research.
This study has several limitations. First, the sample lacked diversity in terms of both
gender and racial identity. A larger and more diverse sample would likely yield more reliable
results. Though the proportions relative to gender identity and racial identity are fairly
representative of Dominican University’s student population, they are certainly not
representative of the larger population. The lack of internal reliability for the Predictability of
Others’ Behavior measure is also a significant limitation. The scale anchors were unintentionally
reversed when entered into the survey software. Since the items were randomized, it is
increasingly possible that participants did not notice the response scale was reversed for several
of the questions; participants, thus, may have unintentionally given opposing answers to
questions that would otherwise be highly correlated. Unfortunately, experimenter error rendered
measurement of this variable’s influence impossible. As was previously mentioned, the way in
which the photographs on the safety measure were edited may have altered the results; they
were significantly darkened, and though several of the items were pilot tested to ensure clarity,
there is still potential that the photographs were difficult to view for certain participants, on
certain devices. Moreover, the administration of this questionnaire in an online format and use of
non-probabilistic sampling methods raise threats to the external validity of this study.
In spite of these limitations, this study has considerable strengths. The exploratory nature
of this research is an inherent strength. Results support pre-existing findings in reference to

gender, while investigating the influence of race on perceptions of safety addresses a critical
dearth in the literature. Though support could not be found for the proposed model, the research
conducted provides the foundations for a more complex and representative understanding of
safety: a model that incorporates both conceptual variables and personality characteristics in the
construct of safety. The demographics questionnaire developed for the purposes of this research
also provides a framework with which to generate more inclusive demographic questionnaires, in
order to better grasp the variability and diversity present within populations. Responses to the
open-ended question on the safety measure provided valuable insight to other factors influencing
perceptions of safety: light, familiarity, and indoor locations. The open-ended question proved to
effectively expand the definition and analysis of safety. Most notably, responses signify that the
safety would be bolstered by installing more outdoor lighting. So, though the research presented
here may not inform the larger population, it serves to inform campus administration and staff of
potential ways in which to foster a safe learning and living environment for students.
Future research of the construct of perceived safety should focus on inclusivity and
diversity of samples. Gender- and race-related differences continue to be pertinent for study, and
future research should focus, also, on investigating other personal identity variables. It is only
through the continued investigation of the relationship between demographic variables and
perceived safety, that psychological research can provide an intersectional conceptualization of
safety. Further research should continue to ask open ended questions, to better qualitatively
assess differences in safety. Likewise, it would be beneficial to study some of the themes in the
open-ended responses reported for this research, such as presence of light. Researchers should
also direct their focus to the development of true-experimental research designs, so as to control
for threats to validity and begin to establish causal relationships relevant to safety. Going

forward, research should aim to expand upon the definition of safety through examining how
differences in personal identity variables influence perceptions of safety between groups.
Hopefully, in determining how groups of people differ, a more reliable model of perceived safety
can be constructed and established. It may be the case that the existing differences between
groups in the population could work to inform potential similarities in perceptions of safety.
Safety is an absolutely critical construct for analysis and it is the duty of future researchers to
begin to piece together who feels safe, where, and why, for the overall betterment of society.

References
Collins, B. E., Martin, J. C., Ashmore, R. D., & Ross, L. (1973). Some dimensions of the
internal‐external metaphor in theories of personality1. Journal of Personality, 41(3), 471-
492.
Culbertson, K. A., Vik, P. W., & Kooiman, B. J. (2001). The impact of sexual assault, sexual
assault perpetrator type, and location of sexual assault on ratings of perceived safety.
Violence Against Women, 7(8), 858-875.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/10778010122182794
Day, K. (1999). Embassies and sanctuaries: women’s experiences of race and fear in public
space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(2), 307-328.
Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces,
75, 667-690.
Fisher, B. S., & Sloan III, J. J. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college
women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported?. Justice Quarterly,
20(3), 633-659.
Gidycz, C. A., McNamara, J. R., & Edwards, K. M. (2006). Women's risk perception and sexual
victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 441-
456. doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004
Hitlan, R. T., Pryor, J. B., Hesson-McInnis, M., & Olson, M. (2009). Antecedents of gender
harassment: An analysis of person and situation factors. Sex Roles, 61(11-12), 794-807.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9689-2

Lane, J., Gover, A. R., & Dahod, S. (2009). Fear of violent crime among men and women on
campus: The impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault. Violence and Victims,
24(2), 172-192. doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.2.172
Steinmetz, N. M., & Austin, D. M. (2014). Fear of criminal victimization on a college campus: A
visual and survey analysis of location and demographic factors. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 39(3), 511-537.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9227-1
Taylor, P. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans: attitudes, experiences and values in changing
times. Pew Research Center.
Van Brunschot, E.G., Laurendeau, J., Keown, L.A. (2009).The global and the local:
precautionary behaviours in the realms of crime, health and home safety. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 34(2).
Woolnough, A. D. (2009). Fear of crime on campus: Gender differences in use of self-protective
behaviours at an urban university. Security Journal, 22(1), 40-55.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.dom.idm.oclc.org/10.1057/sj.2008.11

Figure 1.1. Perceived safety Pareto graph. Sums of safety ratings across all participants
are displayed for each location that appeared on the safety measure.

Figure 1.2: Mean safety histogram. This figure illustrates the frequencies of average
safety ratings obtained across the sample.

Appendix A: Consent Form
Purpose of the research: The goal of the present study is to: gain an understanding of where
individuals feel safe on Dominican University’s campus.
What you will do in this study: You will be asked to complete an online survey consisting of a
variety of items that assess perceptions of behavioral control and safety in specific locations on
campus. You will be asked to view a series of photographs depicting specific locations on
campus, and indicate how safe you would feel if you were alone in the given location. After
viewing all photographs, you will be asked an open-ended question addressing why you may
have indicated specific locations as safe or unsafe. After completion of the survey, you will be
presented with a brief demographics questionnaire. Following completion of demographics form,
you will be debriefed and thanked for your participation.
Time required: The online questionnaire will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.
Risks: Though there are no anticipated risks associated with participating in this study, you may
feel uncomfortable answering questions about your safety. If at any time you feel uncomfortable
with a question, you are free to not answer it. You are also free to withdraw from this study at
any time without penalty.
Benefits: We offer no direct benefits; however, your instructor, at his or her discretion, may
offer credit for your participation. Your instructor determines the amount of course credit. If you
signed up to participate via SONA, your participation in the study is documented. The
information that you provide is not linked to SONA, rather, it serves solely as proof of
participation. If you did not sign up for the study through SONA, you have the option of printing
the debriefing form from Qualtrics and presenting it to your instructor(s) to prove that you
participated.
Confidentiality: Your participation in this research will remain confidential, and no identifying
information will be collected. Your responses are anonymous, and all data will be stored under
password protection. Data will only be available to the researchers, and will be destroyed
immediately after data analysis. If you do not wish to provide answers to any questions
presented in the survey, you are free not to answer.
Participation and withdrawal: Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you feel
uncomfortable answering any questions during the course of this study, you may skip them.
Also, you may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
Contact: If you have questions about this study, please contact me, Mairead McKenna, at
mckemair@my.dom.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant,
please contact the head of the Institutional Review Board, Dr. Cecilia Salvatore at:
csalvatore@dom.edu. You may also contact my professor, Dr. Tracy Caldwell at:
tcaldwell@dom.edu.

Agreement: The purpose and nature of this research have been sufficiently explained and I agree
to participate in this study. I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time without incurring
any penalty. I certify that I am 18 years of age or older.

Appendix B: Predictability of Others’ Behavior
1) I think that it is very hard to predict how people are going to behave.
(Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly agree)
2.) Most behavior can’t be predicted in advance.
3.) Some of the things people decide to do often come as a great surprise to me.
4.) Once you get to know a person well, even then their behavior will often surprise you.
5.) I usually have a pretty good idea of how I am going to behave in a particular situation.
6.) I usually do what I expect my peers to do.
7.) I think that most people are very predictable.
8.) Once you get to know a person well, you can usually tell what they are going to do.

Appendix C: Safety in Different Locations on Campus
Each of the following images will be presented to participants in conjunction with the following
questions:
Are you familiar with this location on campus?
(Yes, No)
If you were alone in this location, how would you feel?
(Completely unsafe, Moderately unsafe, Slightly unsafe, Neutral, Slightly safe, Moderately safe,
Completely Safe)
Upon viewing all 21 photographs, participants will be asked to answer the following question in
an open-ended format:
Please tell us about the ratings you made. For example, if you rated a location as one in which
you would feel safe, why? If you rated a location as one where you would feel less safe, why?

Appendix D: Demographics Questionnaire
Age: ______
Sex Assigned at Birth:
_____ Male
_____ Female
_____ Unassigned at Birth
_____ Prefer Not to Declare
Which of the following terms best aligns with your self-identified gender:
[Note: Cisgender means your gender aligns with your physical sex (e.g., if you are
biologically female, you identify as a woman).]
_____ Cis Male
_____ Cis Female
_____Trans Masculine
_____Trans Feminine
_____Other. Please Specify: ________________________
Sexual Orientation:
_____ Homosexual
_____ Heterosexual
_____ Bisexual
_____ Other. Please Specify: ________________________
Ethnicity/Race (select ALL that apply):

_____ White, non-Hispanic
_____ Hispanic/Latino
_____ African American/Black
_____ Asian
_____ Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
_____ American Indian/Alaskan Native
_____ Other. Please specify: ________________________
Grade Level (select one):
_____ Freshman
_____ Sophomore
_____ Junior
_____ Senior

Appendix E: Debriefing Form
Thank you for participating in this research project! You are providing a valuable service to the
department of psychology. You should have been treated with respect and kindness. We hope
that your experience in the psychological research project was educational as well as pleasurable.
The goal of the present study is to investigate how race and gender influence individuals’
perceptions of safety. You were presented with a demographics questionnaire and asked
questions about your perceived control of others’ behavior. You were also presented pictures of
different locations on campus, and asked to indicate how safe you would feel in that space. Not
only did we want to address individuals’ ratings of safety in general, but safety in particular
locations on campus; we hope to use the information we gather through this study to address
issues of safety on campus, because it is in our best interest to foster a safe environment for all
students.
Past research has focused primarily on geographical regions in which individuals feel safe.
Though this is undoubtedly important, it is equally important to address situational safety; this
study attempts to do so. The literature also points to two very important intersecting factors
influencing perceptions of safety: race and gender. Across the board, non-dominant groups feel
far less safe than dominant groups. Why is this? What situations, behaviors, and attitudes drive
these perceptions?
If you would like to receive a summary of the results at the end of the term, please contact Tracy
Caldwell at tcaldwell@dom.edu. If you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this
study, please contact the head of the Institutional Review Board, Dr. Cecilia Salvatore at:
csalvatore@dom.edu.
If there are questions or concerns about the project that you wish to discuss at some time in the
future, please contact Mairead McKenna at mckemair@my.dom.edu.
You may wish to print this form for your records. If you seek to obtain course credit for your
participation in this study, you may print this form now to present to your instructor(s).
Thanks again for your participation!

FINAL MANUSCRIPT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FINAL MANUSCRIPT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

Similar to FINAL MANUSCRIPT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH (20)

FINAL MANUSCRIPT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH