Running head: TV NEWS AND FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION

Word Count: 4512

The present study was performed to determine whether attention to television news coverage was related to fear of victimization. The participants were 51 college students ranging in age from 20 to 45 years. The participants were asked to complete three survey items. Fear of victimization (FOV), the dependent variable, was measured by a fear of violence survey based on the fear of victimization index (Sparks & Ogles, 1990). Four independent variables, the weekly amount of total television viewing time, the weekly amount of television news viewing time, the weekly number of newspapers read, and the history of previous victimization were examined using a demographic survey and a crime survey. Attention to television news was significantly related to FOV, since participants who watched greater amounts of television news were significantly more fearful of being victimized. General television viewing was not significantly related to FOV, since participants who viewed greater amounts of television did not report being more or less fearful of being victimized. The history of victimization was also significantly related to FOV, since participants with histories of recent victimization reported significantly greater FOV. The age of the participants was significantly related to FOV, since older participants reported significantly less FOV. The amount of newspaper reading was not significantly related to FOV, since participants with greater weekly numbers of newspapers read did not report significantly more or less FOV.

A number of studies have been conducted on the relationships between television viewing and the behavior and attitudes of normal people. Examples of such studies include those by Gerbner and Gross (1976), and Potter (1986). These studies examined the relationships between television viewing, subsequent violent behavior, and fear of victimization (FOV). The results of these and other studies were summarized in research by Friedrich-Cofer and Huston (1986), which focused mainly on the relationship between television viewing and subsequent violent behavior.

Less attention has been devoted to studying the relationships between television viewing and FOV. Regarding FOV, Gerbner and Gross (1976) found that "...respondents' estimates of danger in their neighborhoods had little to do with crime statistics or even with their own personal experience. The pattern of our findings suggests that television and other media exposure may be as important as demographic and other experiential factors in explaining why people view the world as they do" (p. 193). This cultivation hypothesis sparked heated debate. Proponents argued that the amount of television viewing was positively related to beliefs about the amount of violence present in the world, and the probability of being victimized (Bryant, Carveth, & Brown, 1980; Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beeck, Jeffries-Fox, & Signorielli, 1978). Opponents argued that when other variables, such as actual incidence of crime, were controlled for, there was no significant relationship (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hirsch, 1981; Hughes, 1980; Newcomb, 1978; Wober, 1978).

Later studies attempted to clarify the situation. Giles-Sims (1984) was one of the first to distinguish between perceptions of likelihood of victimization and actual worry about crime. Measuring victimization data from the previous year, perceptions of likelihood of victimization, and degree of worry about victimization, as well as demographic information, Giles-Sims found that whereas recent victimization, race, sex, and health status predicted perception of likelihood of victimization, only recent victimization and sex predicted degree of worry about crime. Potter (1986) studied the cultivation hypothesis among participants grouped by levels of perceived reality. The cultivation hypothesis was not found to be statistically significant after controls for demographics were introduced, except among groups of participants with high levels of perceived reality. Where significant relationships between television viewing and FOV existed, they were contingent on the level of perception of reality of the content of the programs viewed. Taken together, these two studies seemed to indicate that recent victimization experience, or exposure to realistic portrayals of victimization, may play an important part in the cultivation of FOV.

Research by O'Keefe (1984) examined the relationship between types of television programming viewed, estimates of the probability of victimization, and the amount of worry about crime. The findings indicated that the total amount of television viewing was not significantly related to the amount of worry about crime. Other findings in the same study indicated that viewing specific types of programming depicting crime which was perceived as a credible representation of reality (e.g., television news programming) was related to the amount of worry about crime.

Noting that crime received disproportionate coverage in both television news and newspaper content, O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) narrowed the investigation to the relationships between television and newspaper crime news, and public perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors concerning crime. They found a significant positive relationship between attention to television crime news and increased FOV. A secondary finding was that attention to newspaper crime stories was not significantly related to FOV. The findings also supported previous research showing that the total amount of television viewing was not significantly related to the amount of worry about crime (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hirsch, 1981; Hughes, 1980; Newcomb, 1978; Wober, 1978).

Sparks and Ogles (1990) argued that most previous studies, including O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987), measured FOV by having respondents estimate the likelihood of victimization, and that this was not a true measure of FOV. They argued that a conceptual distinction between FOV and probability estimates of victimization is necessary. Evidence for this argument came from the fact that the two concepts were not highly correlated in their study. That is, total television viewing was positively related to FOV as measured by the FOV index developed by Sparks and Ogles, but as in previous studies (e.g. Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Hirsch, 1981; Hughes, 1980; Newcomb, 1978; Wober, 1978), no such relationship existed when FOV was measured by traditional methods. Sparks and Ogles' findings cast doubt on the validity of most previous research, including O'Keefe and Reid-Nash, due to the discovery of this confounding of FOV with risk or vulnerability to crime.

Sparks and Ogles (1990) addressed viewing general television programming, and not television news specifically, and O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) measured FOV as the probability of victimization. Neither addressed the relationship between viewing television news and FOV as measured by the FOV index (Sparks & Ogles, 1990). The present research investigated that relationship. It was expected that participants viewing more television news programming would exhibit higher levels of FOV as measured by the FOV index.

A second variable of interest was the total amount of television viewing. Previous research (O'Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987; Sparks & Ogles, 1990) disagreed as to whether a significant relationship existed. It was predicted that participants viewing more total television programming would not exhibit higher levels of FOV as measured by the FOV index.

A third variable studied in the present research was the amount of exposure to newspaper reporting. Research by O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) found that exposure to newspaper crime reports had either no effect, or in some instances reduced FOV. It was predicted that exposure to newspaper crime reports would reduce FOV in the present study, as measured by the FOV index.

Another variable, history of criminal victimization, was examined in relation to FOV, not as a research question, but as a way to control for recent personal experiences involving victimization.

Method

Participants
The participants were 51 undergraduate and graduate students from California State University Stanislaus, Turlock, California. These students lived throughout the central valley region of California, generally within 60 miles of the Turlock campus. Participants' ages ranged from 20 to 45 years, with a mean age of 26.80 years. The distribution of the participants by ethnic group was 64.7% White, 2.0% African American, 2.0% Asian, 2.0% American Indian, 21.6% Hispanic and 7.7% other. There were 8 males and 43 female participants. The level of education completed by the participants ranged from high school senior to graduate student, with the college junior level comprising the largest single group at 47.1%. The mean education level was 15.4 years. Participants were allowed to substitute participation in the survey in place of a short essay normally required in the class. All participants were treated according to the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists" (American Psychological Association, 1992).

Materials
Each participant received a large manila envelope containing several items. The first item was an instruction sheet that explained that participation was voluntary, that participants could quit at any time, and that their anonymity would be protected (see Appendix A). The second item was a demographic questionnaire covering gender, age, education, family income, ethnicity, the number of hours of general television viewed per week, the number of hours of television news programs viewed per week, and the number of newspapers read per week (see Appendix B). The third item was the FOV survey based on the FOV index (Sparks & Ogles, 1990). This modified survey asked participants how concerned they were about several types of criminal victimization (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to rate their concern in each of the 10 questions on a 7 point Likert scale from "Not at all" (1) to "Extremely" (7). Higher scores indicated more concern regarding that type of victimization. The fourth item was a survey of the participant's actual history of victimization during the past year, covering essentially the same items as the FOV survey such as, "Within the past year, have you been purposely injured by a stranger?" (see Appendix D).

Procedure
Testing was done in a group format. Materials packets were distributed in an undergraduate, junior level Psychology class at California State University, Stanislaus to volunteer participants during class time. The packets were completed and returned to the instructor at the end of the class period. Participants were asked to complete the packets truthfully and to the best of their abilities. Items were presented in an order designed not to expose the purpose of the research, and participants were instructed not to read ahead before answering questions. Participant anonymity was protected by participants sealing their own completed packets into manila envelopes. A separate informed consent sheet was signed and returned along with each sealed envelope.

Results
Participants' scores for FOV as measured by the FOV survey were correlated with participants' scores for each of the independent variables using the Pearson product-moment correlation at an alpha level of .05.

The hypothesis that participants who reported viewing more television news programs would report higher FOV levels was supported, since a correlation of television news viewing and FOV was statistically significant, r (49) = 0.32. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 1.

The hypothesis that participants who reported more total television viewing would not report higher FOV levels was supported, in that a correlation of total television viewing and FOV was not statistically significant, r (49) = 0.19. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 1.

Further, the hypothesis that participants who reported more exposure to newspaper crime reporting would report lower FOV levels was not supported, since a correlation of newspaper crime reporting exposure and FOV was not statistically significant, r (49) = -0.23. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 1.

The history of recent criminal victimization was significantly related to FOV, in that a correlation of crime survey scores and FOV was statistically significant, r (49) = -0.32. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 1.

Although they were not predicted results, both age and race were significantly related to FOV. The age of participants was significantly related to FOV, in that a correlation of age and FOV was statistically significant, r (49) = -0.34. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 1. The race of participants was significantly related to FOV, in that a correlation of race and FOV was statistically significant, r (49) = -0.31 for Whites, and r (49) = -0.27 for Blacks.

Discussion
The present research supports the hypothesis that television news programming is significantly related to FOV. This agrees with O'Keefe (1984), and later O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987), who found that certain specific types of programming, depicting crime which was perceived as a credible representation of reality, would be related to the amount of worry about crime (FOV). The present research eliminated some of the arguments raised by Sparks and Ogles (1990) against the work of O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987), that likelihood was not a valid measure of FOV. The present research eliminated questions about likelihood by using a version of the FOV index (Sparks & Ogles, 1990), modified to eliminate the word "afraid" and substitute the word "concern" in order to avoid a socially desirable negative response. To accomplish this the FOV index questions which began "How afraid are you...?" were modified to read "How concerned are you...?". The number of items on the modified survey used in the present research was increased from 5 to 10, and expanded to include both major and minor crime so that nearly all participants obtained some score on the survey. This eliminated previously encountered floor effects and produced a significant positive correlation between a concern about violence and the amount of TV news programming viewed.

The present research suggests that general television viewing is not related to FOV. In this regard, it tends to refute the findings of Gerbner and Gross (1976), who found a significant relationship between general television viewing and FOV, from which they formulated the cultivation hypothesis. Since then the cultivation hypothesis has been the object of much debate, with various groups of researchers arriving at various conclusions. Previous researchers may have reached varying conclusions about whether there exists a significant relationship between TV viewing and FOV Because they may not have been specific enough in their categorizations of types of programming viewed. The present research found no significant relationship between general television viewing and FOV. This supports the findings of studies of the cultivation hypothesis by Doob and Macdonald (1979), Hirsch (1981), Hughes (1980), Newcomb (1978), and Wober (1978), which found no significant relationship between general television viewing and FOV. Of the more recent studies, the present research also supports the conclusion of O'Keefe (1984), that general television viewing is not related to FOV, and disagrees with the findings of Sparks and Ogles (1990) that FOV is related to general television viewing, even though it measures FOV using a survey based upon Sparks and Ogles' own FOV index.

One factor that could affect the results of various studies over the decades is the change in the variety of available programming brought about by the advent of cable television, remote controls, and video tape recorders (VCRs). These devices give viewers more choice about what kind of programming to watch. Perse, Ferguson, and McLeod (1994) found that FOV was negatively related to the availability of non-broadcast cable channels and VCR ownership. This suggests that the assumption that the term "general television viewing" includes specific types and amounts of programming is no longer true. In the days when viewers were limited to a handful of broadcast channels, all viewers experienced more or less the same programming. With the current availability of hundreds of broadcast and non-broadcast sources of programming it makes little sense to speak of "general television viewing" in terms of specific content. Investigators must now carefully specify what types of content they are interested in studying.

Another explanation for this apparent variability of results could have to do with cycles in general television programming content. Popular television programs tend to be copied in theme, format, and style. Over the past several decades, this has resulted in periods when dozens of crime dramas appeared on network television each week, and other periods when dozens of family situation comedies were programmed each week. This could affect the results of research performed at different times during the last two decades.

A third relationship explored in the present research was that between newspaper readership and FOV. O'Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) studied the relationship between newspaper crime reporting exposure and FOV. The present research supports their finding that attention to newspaper crime stories was not significantly related to FOV. It should be noted, however, that the present research produced a nearly significant negative correlation, r (49) = -0.23. It appears that any increases in FOV related to increased newspaper crime report exposure may be offset by the additional detailed information available in newspaper reports of crime. The availability of more detail and explanation in the print medium tends to reduce levels of FOV at the same time that coverage of crime tends to increase it (Liska & Baccaglini, 1990).

The present research also compared participants' recent history of criminal victimization with FOV in order to control for this independent variable. A significant positive relationship between history of victimization (HOV) and FOV was found. This tends to refute the research of Gerbner and Gross (1976), who found no relationship. The positive nature of the relationship might suggest that HOV is a confounding variable with TV news viewing and FOV, however the present research also shows no relationship between HOV and TV news viewing, r (49) = 0.05. Although HOV is related to FOV, r (49) = 0.32, and thereby accounts for a major portion of the variability in FOV, this finding indicates that there is no confounding of television news exposure and recent history of victimization in relation to FOV.

Another unpredicted significant result was a relationship between age and FOV. It appears that as one's age increases one becomes less concerned about violence. This makes some logical sense, since it might be expected that one would become less fearful of the world in general as one's history of successful life experiences increases. As one ages, one learns to cope with the world and the difficulties it may present from day to day. Since the oldest participant in the present study was 45 years old, and the youngest was 20 years old, it is possible that a different relationship, possibly of a quadratic nature, between FOV and age might exist for wider age ranges or different age groups.

Other unpredicted significant results were based on ethnicity. Both Whites and Blacks were significantly less fearful than the sample as a whole, and though Latinos had significantly less HOV, r (49) = -0.31, they had a higher level of FOV than the sample as a whole, approaching significance, r (49) = 0.17. These differences can probably best be explained as cultural traits, and may be the result of cultural bias in the surveys.

The present research suggests several ideas for future study. The FOV index (Sparks & Ogles, 1990) might be further refined and expanded to make it a still more sensitive instrument, and larger and more representative samples could be taken. It would also be interesting to design a factorial study to analyze relationships between levels of variables, and also between subgroups of participants (e.g., males vs. females). Validity might be improved by asking participants to keep a log of their actual television viewing and newspaper reading, so that types of television programs viewed and newspaper stories read could be tabulated more accurately.

Future research could take a closer look at the effects of new technology and new media on FOV. Such new technology could include computer and video games, as well as movies made with newer and more realistic special effects.

An interesting comparison might be made with the FOV survey scores, TV news viewing, and some of the scales on various personality tests to determine how much of the remaining unexplained variance in FOV is the result of individual personality traits. This might be of interest because it appears that HOV and TV news viewing account for only about 19% of the variance in FOV.

It would also be interesting to measure the degree to which participants become inoculated against FOV by constant exposure to portrayals of violence in the media. It is possible that realistic portrayals of violent events may reach some saturation point, after which FOV begins to decline as violence becomes an everyday companion. This might best be done in a true experiment in a laboratory setting. Whatever its causes, FOV will certainly remain a major social issue, and a topic for further psychological and social research.
 

References

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

Bryant, J., Carveth, R. A., & Brown, D. (1980). Does heavy television viewing produce anxiety? Or does anxiety promote heavy television viewing? Paper presented at the International Communication Association convention, Acapulco, Mexico.

Doob, A. N., & Macdonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179.

Friedrich-Cofer, L., & Huston, A. C. (1986). Television violence and aggression: The debate continues. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 364-371.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173-199.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 176-207.

Giles-Sims, J. (1984). A multivariate analysis of perceived likelihood of victimization and degree of worry about crime in older people. Victimology, 9(2), 222-233.

Hirsch, P. M. (1981). Distinguishing good speculation from bad theory: Rejoinder to Gerbner et al. Communication Research, 8, 73-95.

Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of television watching. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 287-302.

Liska, A. E., & Baccaglini, W. (1990). Feeling safe by comparison: Crime in the newspapers. Social Problems, 37(3), 360-374.

Newcomb, H. (1978). Assessing the violence profile of Gerbner and Gross: A humanistic critique and suggestions. Communication Research, 5, 264-282.

O'Keefe, G. J. (1984). Public views on crime: Television exposure and media credibility. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 73-95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

O'Keefe, G. J., & Reid-Nash, K. (1987). Crime news and real world blues. Communication Research, 14(2), 147-163.

Perse, E. M., Ferguson, D. A., & McLeod, D. M. (1994). Cultivation in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 21(1), 79-104.

Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(2), 159-174.

Sparks, G. G., & Ogles, R. M. (1990). The difference between fear of victimization and the probability of being victimized: Implications for cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(3), 351-358.

Wober, J. M. (1978). Televised violence and paranoid perception: The view from Great Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 315-321.
 

Appendix A

Informed Consent

INSTRUCTIONS

I understand that participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and that I may withdraw from participation at any time. I also understand that my answers will be kept entirely anonymous, and all information given will be held in strict confidence.

Name: __________________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ________________

Please read the instructions on each item carefully and answer all items as truthfully and accurately as possible. After completing the items, return them to the envelope and seal it. Hand this form and the sealed envelope to your instructor. If you wish to know more about the purpose and results of this study, please leave your name and address with your instructor. Thank you for your participation in this study.
 

Appendix B
Demographic Questionnaire

Highest Grade Level Attended: _____________

Age: __________
Approximate annual family income: _______________

Ethnicity:
White _____                             Asian _____
Afro-American _____               Hispanic _____
American Indian _____ Other _____

Number of hours you watch television each week: _______________
Number of hours of television news programming you watch each week: _______________
Number of newspapers you read each week: ______________
 

Appendix C

FOV Index

1. How concerned are you about being seriously injured or killed as the result of a violent crime?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

2. How concerned are you about being threatened with a deadly weapon by someone you know?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

3. How concerned are you about being threatened with a deadly weapon by a stranger?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

4. How concerned are you about being purposely injured by someone you know?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

5. How concerned are you about being purposely injured by a stranger?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

6. How concerned are you about being robbed or your property burglarized?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

7. How concerned are you that a neighbor or acquaintance will be robbed or their property burglarized?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

8. How concerned are you that your property will be vandalized?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

9. How concerned are you that a neighbor or acquaintance will have their property vandalized?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___

10. How concerned are you about being verbally harassed by a stranger?
Not at all                                 Extremely
1___ 2___ 3___ 4___ 5___ 6___ 7___
 

Appendix D

History of Victimization Questionnaire

1. Within the past year, have you, a family member or close friend been seriously injured or killed as the result of a violent crime?
Yes_____ No_____

2. Within the past year, have you been threatened with a deadly weapon by a family member or a close friend?
Yes_____ No_____

3. Within the past year, have you been threatened with a deadly weapon by a stranger?
Yes_____ No_____

4. Within the past year, have you been purposely injured by someone you know?
Yes_____ No_____

5. Within the past year, have you been purposely injured by a stranger?
Yes_____ No_____

6. Within the past year, have you been robbed or your property burglarized?
Yes_____ No_____

7. Within the past year, has a neighbor or acquaintance been robbed or their property burglarized?
Yes_____ No_____

8. Within the past year, has your property been vandalized?
Yes_____ No_____

9. Within the past year, has a neighbor or acquaintance had their property vandalized?
Yes_____ No_____

10. Within the past year, have you been verbally harassed by a stranger?
Yes_____ No_____

This study was conducted for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Professor James A. Wakefield, Ph.D. toward 2 semester units of independent study in the Spring 1996 semester at California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, California.

Requests for reprints, copies of the research conducted, or other inquiries should be sent to John D. Price, Psychology Department, California State University, Stanislaus, 801 W. Monte Vista Avenue, Turlock, CA 95382.  Alternatively such requests can be emailed to jprice@floop.com.
 

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between FOV, Television Viewing, Television News Viewing, Newspaper Exposure, History of Victimization, and Age.
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________
Correlation with
Variable                                                                     Mean                  SD                  FOV
_______________________________________________________________________
FOV                                                                          34.49                  13.44                1.00
Total Television Hours                                              9.22                    7.61               0.19
Television News Hours                                             2.80                    3.03               0.32
Newspapers Read                                                      2.76                    2.92               -0.09
History of Victimization                                             1.73                    1.89                0.32
Age                                                                            26.80                   7.85               -0.34
_______________________________________________________________________

TV News and Fear 21

 Return to Previous Page