Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ABSTRACT: Fear of crime has been a major research topic over the past several decades, due in part to the
growing awareness that the consequences of fear reach beyond feelings of personal anxiety, and also because it
affects people from all strata of life. Although a plethora of research has been conducted on the subject in the
Western world, however, there remains a paucity of such study in developing countries like Nigeria. Thus, this
study has as its primary objective to examine the effect of organizational participation on fear of crime in
Nigerian context. To test this, the study used data from Afrobarometer Round 6, 2015-2016 on the quality of
democracy and governance in Nigeria. To achieve the objective of the study, several analyses were conducted.
Specifically, the study utilized descriptive statistics and correlation. The finding indicates that organizational
and community groups participation in Nigerian does not allay fear of crime in the neighborhood and at home.
I. BACKGROUND
The central focus of this study is to examine the effect of (if any) organizational participation, an
element of social capital, on fear of crime in Nigeria. For the past 4 decades fear of crime has constituted an
important topic among scholars especially in the field of social sciences (Lee, 2001), majorly because, it is a
phenomenon that, if not controlled could have some adverse effects on individuals in particular and the
community at large. Studies have shown that it undermines the quality of life, leads to anxiety, depression, and
community withdrawal which consequently (i.e., the community withdrawal) could lead to disorder and crime
(Box, Hale & Andrews 1988; Hale 1996). It has also been established to increase divisions between the rich and
the poor (Putman 2000).
There are three main theoretical models in the explanation of the concept of fear of crime, these are: the
vulnerability model, the disorder model and the social integration model. While the primary focus in the first
and second model, i.e., vulnerability and disorder model is on what facilitates fear, the focus on social
integration model is on what inhibits fear of crime (Franklin, Franklin and Fearn, 2008). The vulnerability
model postulates that those who feel that they are unable to defend themselves, such as women, the elderly,
individuals in low socio-economic resistance and crime victims will be more fearful of crime than the others
(Alper and Chappell 2012; Franklin, et al., 2008). The disorder model posits that when there is an extensive
form of incivilities in the community there will be an increase in fear of crime among the residents. This model
originates from the broken windows perspective put forward by Wilson & Kelling (1982) that neighborhood
incivilities influence perceptions of crime.
The social integration model from where the current study is framed out, argues that, those who are
well socially integrated within their neighborhoods experience lower levels of fear of crime than those who are
not as well integrated. In sum residents who become familiar with their neighbors and develop connectedness in
their neighborhood would show lower level of fear (Franklin et al., 2008). This connectedness includes
possessing personal investments in the neighborhood, having social ties to neighbors, and feeling emotional
attachment to the community (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002). Other forms of connectedness include involvement in
neighborhood activities, engaging in neighborhood information sharing, presence of friends or relatives living in
the neighborhood (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993), and participation in formal organizations (Austin, Woolever, &
Baba, 1994). This connectedness among the residents in the community creates a form of capital that is referred
to as social capital (Farrell, 2007)
Social capital, according to Savage & Kanazawa (2002), is a resource obtained by social relationships
with other human beings that can be employed for numerous benefits. It is the value inherent in social
connections and reciprocities (Farrell, 2007). There is a plethora of scholarly work that has linked social capital
to numerous socio-economic, psychological, and health benefits. For example, studies have shown that social
capital improves the citizens‘ health (Putnam, 2000), improve the economic situation of individuals and or the
community (Tiepoh, Nah, & Reimer, 2004), and increase educational performance (Putnam, 2000).
IV. METHOD
Data Source and Sample
The primary objective of this study is to examine the effect of organizational participation on fear of crime in
Nigerian context. To test this, the study used data from Afrobarometer Round 6, 2015-2016 on the quality of
democracy and governance in Nigeria. Afrobarometer used the 2006 population and housing census of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria to draw their sample size of 2,400, which consisted of citizens of Nigeria who are
18 years old and above. The sample design was made to reflect every group within the country including the
rural and urban dwellers; it was nationally representative, random, clustered, stratified, and multi-stage area
probability sample.
The country was divided into strata from where the Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) was drawn. To get
the PSU, Afrobarometer used probability proportionate to population size (PPPS) and 8 households per PSU
were drawn. The first point of the household was randomly selected, then was followed by walk pattern using
5/10 interval. The final selection which involved the selection of an individual respondent from each household
was gender quota filled by alternating interviews between men and women respondents of appropriate gender
listed, after which household member draws a numbered card to select individuals. The contact rate according to
Afrobarometer was 89.9% and the response rate was 69.5%.
Measures
Dependent Variable
Fear of crime is the dependent variable for this study. And to measure this, Afrobarometer asked from the
respondent this question, ―Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family: Felt unsafe
AJHSSR Journal P a g e | 164
American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2018
walking in your neighborhood?‖ The values are: 0-4, 9, 98, and 98. For 0 = Never, 1 = Just once, 2 = Several
times, 3 = Many times, 9 = Don‘t know, 98 = Refused to answer, and -1 = Missing. Furthermore, respondents
were asked: ―Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family: Feared crime in your
own home?‖ The values for this question are the same as the above.
Independent Variables
The independent variable for the study is organizational participation. Specifically, the study examines
the effects of religious organizational participation and membership in voluntary/community groups on fear of
crime. To measure this, the respondents were asked whether they are an official leader, an active member, an
inactive member, or not a member of a religious and voluntary/community group? The values are: 0-3, 9, 98, -1.
While 0=Not a Member, 1=Inactive member, 2=Active member, 3=Official leader, 9=Don‘t know, 98=Refused
to answer, -1=Missing.
The demographic distribution of the study respondents is presented in Table 1. The respondents are
evenly split based on gender, 50.2% male and 49.8% female, with an average age of 31 years (SD = 10.60).
About 52.6% were employed. The majority of the respondents‘ educational level falls into senior high school or
below (63.8%), while 27.3% have higher educational level. About 43.6% of the respondents dwelled in the rural
areas while 56.4% dwelled in the urban areas. (Afrobarometer, 2016).
Afrobarometer, 2016
Plan of analysis
To achieve the primary objective of the study, several analyses were conducted. Specifically, the study utilized
descriptive statistics and correlation. A correlation matrix was used as a bivariate technique to determine the
relationship between the independent and the dependent variable and to assess whether such relationships were
significant.
Results
The table 2 below shows the individual correlation between organizational participation (religious group
membership and voluntary association or community membership) and fear of crime (how often felt unsafe
walking in the neighborhood) at a significant level of p<0.01.
The Pearson correlation between religious group membership and how often felt unsafe walking in the
neighborhood is 0.061 and the significant level is p=0.003<0.01. This shows that there is a very weak significant
positive relationship between being a member of a religious group and feeling unsafe to walk around in the
neighborhood. This implies that, the more the organizational participation in religious groups, the more the
people felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood. In essence, organizational participation in religious groups
could not allay the fear of crime in terms of safety feeling about walking in the neighborhood. Consequently, the
Pearson correlation points to the fact that organizational participation in religious groups is not absolute (very
Table 2. Correlation between Organizational Participation (Religious Group Membership and Voluntary
Association or Community Membership) and Fear of Crime (How often felt unsafe walking in the
neighborhood)
Religious Group Voluntary Association
Membership or Community Group
Membership
Table 3 shows the individual correlation between organizational participation (religious group membership and
voluntary association or community membership) and fear of crime (how often feared crime in the home) at a
significant level of p<0.01.
The Pearson correlation between religious group membership and how often feared crime in the home
is 0.1 and the significant level is p=0.000<0.01. This shows that there is a very weak significant positive
relationship between being a member of a religious group and often fear of crime in the home. This suggests
that, the more the organizational participation in religious groups, the more the people feared crime in the home.
In essence, organizational participation in religious groups could not allay the fear of crime in the home.
Hereinafter, the Pearson correlation points to the fact that organizational participation in religious groups is not
absolute (very weak relationship) in determining the individual safety level or fear of crime. Hence,
organizational participation in religious groups, only to a certain extent made the respondents fear crime in the
home.
Comparably, the Pearson correlation between how often feared crime in the home and voluntary association or
community group membership is 0.133 and the significant level is p=0.000<0.01. This indicates that there is a
very weak significant positive relationship between being a member of a voluntary association or community
group and how often the respondents felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood. In other words, the more the
organizational participation in voluntary association or community groups, the more the people feared crime in
the home. In essence, organizational participation in voluntary association or community group could not allay
the fear of crime in the home. Henceforward, the Pearson correlation points to the fact that organizational
participation in voluntary association or community activities is not absolute (very weak relationship) in
determining the individual safety level or fear of crime. Hence, organizational participation in voluntary
association or community groups, only to a certain extent made respondents the feared crime in the home.
In addition, from table 3, it shows that the relationship between voluntary association or community group
participation and how often respondents feared crime in home is higher when compared with its relationship
with religious group participation.
Multiple Regression
The effect of how organizational participation (i.e. Religious Group Membership/Voluntary Association or
Community Group Membership) predict or allay fear of crime (i.e. How often felt unsafe walking in the
neighborhood and How often feared Crime in the Home) was tested using multiple regression analysis.
a. Multiple Regression on how Organizational Participation predict fear of crime (i.e. How often felt unsafe
walking in the neighbourhood)
Table 4a shows the regression summary, R value = 0.106 represents the simple correlation which indicates a
low degree of correlation between Religious Group Membership and the two variables tested. From the same
regression summary – table 4a, R Square value = 0.01 shows that fear of crime (i.e. How often felt unsafe
walking in the neighborhood) variable is only about 1% predictable using participation in organizational
activities (i.e Religious Group/Voluntary Association or Community Membership).
In addition, in table 4a, under the change statistics, it shows that the regression model significantly predicts fear
of crime (i.e. How often felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood) as p = 0.000<0.05. In other words, both
independent variables analyzed, i.e., membership of religious organization and community groups, have
significant effect on fear of crime (i.e. how often felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood).
In furtherance to the information provided on table 4a, the standard error of the estimate = 1.24129 and this is a
litmus test indicating the validity of the data analyzed. Hence, the result of this analysis can be trusted.
Lastly, table 4b shows that fear of crime (i.e. how often felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood) can be
predicted significantly by the two independent variables of organizational participation (i.e. Religious Group
Membership and Voluntary Association or Community Group Membership) by the formula below;
Y = 0.709 - 0.004X1 + 0.096X2 + 1.24129
Where Y = Fear of crime (i.e. How often felt unsafe walking in the neighborhood)
X1 = Member of a Religious Group
X2 = Member of Voluntary Association or Community Group
REFERENCES
[1]. Adigun, F. O. (2013) Residential Differentials in Incidence and Fear of Crime Perception in Ibadan.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol.3, No.10. P. 96-105.
[2]. Adigun & Adedibu (2013) Correlates of Residents‘ Response to Crime in Nigerian Cities.Global
Journal of Human Social Science Political Science. Volume 13 Issue 5 Version 1.0
[3]. Agnew, R. S. (1985). Neutralizing the impact of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(2), 221-
239.
[4]. Alper, M., & Chappell, A. T. (2012) Untangling Fear of Crime: A Multi Theoretical Approach to
Examining the Causes of Crime-Specific Fear. Sociological Spectrum, 32: 346–363, 2012.
[5]. Alvi, S., Schwartz, M. D., DeKeseredy, W. S., & Maume, M. O. (2001). Women‘s fear of crime in
Canadian public housing. Violence Against Women, 7, 638-661.