For my LEG120 - Legal Research Unit we had to submit a Lab Report in two sections, A and B. This is part A, the introduction. The introduction contains a literature review, examining past studies, as well as a summary of our hypotheses. © 2015 Joshua David Walker

1. Perception and fear of crime in individuals: A manipulation of
collective efficacy
Joshua David Walker
A Lab Report
Submitted to the School of Law
For Fulfilment of Assignment 2
Requirement for Passing the Unit LEG120: Legal Research
Murdoch University
April 2015

2. 32677336 2
Perception and fear of crime in individuals: A manipulation of collective efficacy
The fear and perception of crime in modern neighbourhoods is critically linked to
sociological and economical status, residential stability, and gender (Fear of Crime, 1999).
Social Integration Theory has measured the effects of these variables for over 100 years, and
as such it is the most well researched and modified theory for explaining the variations in fear
and perceptions of crime in individual communities (Farmer, 2014).
In 1912, when Durkheim first posited the idea of Social Integration Theory, he
defined it as the willingness for members of the community to participate in communal
matters as a collective consciousness. Since then, both quantitative and qualitative research
has posited that the proportion of personal integration in a community is directly proportional
to an individual’s fear of crime, and perception of risk at being offended against (Gibson,
Zhoa, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002; Sutton & Farrall, 2005).
The research of Weinrath and Gartrell (1996) also shows that individual
neighbourhoods that have friendly relationships between neighbours face less crime and feel
more secure in their neighbourhood. According to Durkheim’s (1912) Social Integration
Theory, community cohesion acts as deterrent to crime and therefore increases the feelings of
public safety within the community, and consequently reducing the fear of crime (Blau,
1960). But despite this seemingly logical connection, the results of this research have been
irregular (Garofalo, 1979).
Bursik and Grasmick (1993) suggested that the reason for this was the way that the
many individual components of Social Integration Theory were measured. This study
suggests an alternative possibility: It appears that the concept of social integration plays only
an initiatory role in the formulation of one’s perception and fear of crime; it does not join all

3. 32677336 3
the variables in a manner that allows for a whole, conclusive1 theorem. Regardless of any
complications with social integration, Durkheim’s theory has always been seen as valid due
to the consistency of the aforementioned correlations. However there was a need for an
alternate theory in order to continue researching the perception and fear of crime in a way
that accounts for incompatibility of the variables (Williams J. , 2005). This is where
Collective Efficacy Theory comes in, and why this study was conducted.
Collective efficacy is used to define the effectiveness of how members of a
community control the behaviour of other individuals or groups in that community
(Cristensen, 2003). In the mid 1990’s, Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls began testing and
measuring collective efficacy, eventually positing the Collective Efficacy Theory. They
began however by measuring self-efficacy, multiple individuals’ levels of participation in a
community. Their reasoning being that this would give a good indication of the communities
efficacy overall. However, the data that Sampson et al. found suggested otherwise. An
individuals’ involvement in the community was not indicative or significantly influential to
levels of community cohesion, and therefore not collective efficacy. They hypothesised that
not all individuals had a willingness to be actively involved in their community, nor did
everyone want to intervene in a criminal dispute. Thus, they moved their focus from
individuals to the whole neighbourhood, and groups within that neighbourhood. By changing
the research’s focus, they took into account the willingness of individuals to control public
order, and their goals in the event of criminal phenomena (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls,
1997). This resulted in what we recognise as a primal Collective Efficacy Theory. At the very
core of the Collective Efficacy Theory is the idea that social cohesion is an influence to the
1 Conclusive in this sense does not mean, “proven”. It simply means it recognises causation rather than a simple correlation.

4. 32677336 4
fear and perception of crime; but they can only be influenced when that society or group2 has
a willingness to intervene (Williams J. , 2005).
Later studies by Franklin and Franklin (2009) began working on distinct variations in
fear of crime between the two genders found by Sutton and Farrall in 2005. They
hypothesised that this was because males were under more social pressure to be masculine
and unafraid. However, what their research found was that males, when these social factors
were accounted for, were not significantly less or more fearful of crime. Not only did they
note variations in fear between genders but also, consistent with Fox, Nobles and Piquero
(2009), that during the night, males’ fear of crime stayed approximately level3 , while
females’ went drastically up. While during the day males again stayed the same and females
went down to the same levels of males. (Franklin & Franklin, 2009; Fox, Nobles, & Piquero,
2009; Sutton & Farrall, 2005)
It is evident that Collective Efficacy Theory is a better alternative to Social
Integration Theory as it is able to explain a larger spectrum of crime variance within a
community, whilst accounting for all variables cohesively. This study measured individuals’
fear and perceptions of crime when collective efficacy was manipulated both positively and
negatively. As a result, the following hypotheses are formulated based upon the review of the
literature and the research questions provided in Appendix A.
It was hypothesised that the variance in collective efficacy would vary with both fear
of crime levels, and perception of crime levels. A low collective efficacy negatively changed
both fear and perception of crime, and a high collective efficacy positively changed fear and
perception of crime. It was also hypothesised that fear of crime and perception of crime
2 By group I do not mean specifically a club or gang, but any number of peoplewith an essentially similar mindset. This is
related to Sutherland and Cressey’s 1960 Differential Association Theory, in which he posited that we adopt thenorms of
the society or groups that we are a part of. (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960)
3 Again accounting for thesocial pressures. In fact they noted a group of individuals in the study in which fear of crime at
night went down. This was thought to be a more drastic level of social pressure, in which males needed to “defend” females
during the night, and must therefore be unafraid (Franklin & Franklin, 2009; Fox, Nobles, & Piquero, 2009).

5. 32677336 5
would be change, depending on gender. Males would have less fear and perception of crime,
and females would have more fear and perception of crime. Furthermore, it was hypothesised
that fear of crime would become higher or lower depending on the time of day. We predicted
that when it was daytime, the fear of crime would be lower, and during the night, fear of
crime would be higher. These predictions led to two more hypotheses; that there was an
inversely proportional relationship between collective efficacy and both perception and fear
of crime. As collective efficacy went up, the perception and fear of crime went down; and
when collective efficacy went down, perception and fear of crime went up.
WORD COUNT: 989

6. 32677336 6
References
Bellair, P. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship.
Criminology , 38, 677-703.
Blau, P. M. (1960). A Theory of Social Integration. American Journal of Sociology , 65 (6),
545-556.
Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of
effective community control. New York, Lexington: Lexington Books.
Cristensen, K. (2003). Collective Efficacy. In J. R. Sampson, K. Cristensen, & D. Levinson,
Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World (Vol. 1, p. 205).
Sage Publications.
Durkheim, D. E. (1912). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. (J. W. Swain, Trans.)
France.
Farmer, A. K. (2014). Collective Efficacy Theory. In A. K. Farmer, The Encyclopedia of
Theoretical Criminology (pp. 1-4).
Fear of Crime. (1999). Probation Journal , 46 (1), 33-34.
Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Gender, crime victimization and fear of
crime. Security Journal , 22 (1), 24-39.
Franklin, C. A., & Franklin, T. W. (2009). Predicting Fear of Crime: Considering
Differences Across Gender. Feminist Criminology , 4 (1), 83-106.
Garofalo, J. (1979). Victimization and the Fear of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency , 16 (1), 80-97.
Gibson, C. L., Zhoa, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, individual
perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice
Quarterly , 19 (3), 537-564.

7. 32677336 7
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:
A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science , 277 (5328), 918-924.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1960). A Theory of Differential Association. (F. T.
Cullen, & R. Agnew, Eds.) Criminological Theory: Past to Present , 122-125.
Sutton, R. M., & Farrall, S. (2005). Gender, socially desirable responding and the fear of
crime. British Journal of Criminlology , 45, 212-224.
Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime
model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Social
Problems , 44, 520-536.
Weinrath, M., & Gartrell, J. (1996). Victimization and fear of crime. Violence and victims ,
11 (3), 187-204.
Williams, J. (2005). Crime and fear of crime. Sociology Review , 14 (4), 34.

8. 32677336 8
Appendix A – Research Questions
LAB REPORT – PART A RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following are the research questions you should address in your first assignment Lab
Report – Part A (Introduction).
Your literature review should include studies that have investigated these same variables –
what did they find? Based upon this information you then formulate your hypotheses
(predictive statements) about what you expect to find in your own study. These should be last
in your introduction.
You are expected to formulate and present a hypothesis for each research question.
- Do levels of Collective Efficacy influence fear of crime levels?
- Do levels of Collective Efficacy influence perceptions of crime rates?
- Do males and females differ in their fear of crime levels?
o Does this vary depending upon the Collective Efficacy levels of a neighbourhood? - Do
males and females differ in their perceptions of crime rate?
o Does this vary depending upon the Collective Efficacy levels of a neighbourhood?
- Will participants have higher levels of fear of crime for their neighbourhood
at night or during the day?
- Is there are a relationship between collective efficacy and fear of crime?
o Does relationship change with the level of collective efficacy of the neighbourhood? - Is
there are a relationship between collective efficacy and perceptions of crime rate?
o Does relationship change with the level of collective efficacy of the neighbourhood?
NB: there will be additional research questions that will need to be addressed in your Lab
Report – Part B (Method, Results & Discussion). Check “Lab Report Materials” regularly for
updates.