Journal of Pcnonality and Social Piycholoty1984, Vol. 47, No. 2, 263-276

Copynihi 1984 by theAmerican Piychological Ajsooauon, Inc.

Impact of Newspaper Crime Reports on Fear of Crime:Multimethodological Investigation

Linda HeathUniversity of Minnesota

In this study, the impact of components of newspaper crime reports on fear ofcrime was investigated. Key newspaper components were based on theorizing inthe areas of downward comparison, attribution, and normative behavior. In Study1 (a field quasi experiment) 36 newspapers were classified according to the proportionof crime reports that involved local crimes, sensational crimes, and random crimes.The levels of fear of crime among a random sample of readers of these newspapers(N = 335) were assessed through telephone interviews. Respondents who readnewspapers that printed a high proportion of local crime news reported higherlevels of fear if the crimes were predominantly sensational or appeared to be random,whereas respondents whose newspapers printed a low proportion of local crimenews reported lower levels of fear if the crimes were predominantly sensational orrandom (p < .05). These findings were replicated in Study 2 (a laboratory exper-iment). College students (N = 80) who read reports of local crimes expressed higherlevels of fear if the crimes were random rather than precipitated, whereas theopposite pattern emerged in regard to nonlocal crimes (p < .05). Implications forpsychologists and journalists are discussed.

In the late 1960s, social policymakers andresearchers realized that the problem of crimewas compounded by the problem of fear ofcrime. People perceived crime as even moreprevalent than it actually was and consequentlyexperienced fear that was disproportional totheir actual danger (Erskine, 1974). The massmedia were identified as a primary force (alongwith direct and indirect experience) in shapingpeople's views of crime (Dominick, 1978;Quinney, 1970), and research on the mediaflourished. Most of the media research focusedon effects of televised crime, although a sub-stantial amount examined effects attributableto newspaper presentations of crime. Re-searchers documented how much attention wasgiven to crime in the newspapers (e.g., Cirino,

This research was supported by National Science Foun-dation Grant DAR 8011225 and by a University of Min-nesota Graduate School Grant. The author would like tothank Amy Blythe, Teresa Crimmins, Alison Langley, andKristen Ragozzino for assistance in data collection andEllen Berscheid, Eugene Borgida, Richard Petronio, andMark Snyder for helpful comments on earlier drafts ofthis manuscript.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Linda Heath,Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago,6S2S North Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois 60626.

1974; Quinney, 1970; Ryan & Owen, 1976),compared the amount of crime presented innewspapers with crime rates reported by theUniform Crime Reports (UCR) (e.g., Jones,1976), and investigated the effect of newspapercrime reporting on perceptions of crime (e.g.,Baker, Nienstedt, Everett, & McCleary, 1983;Davis, 1951; Gordon & Heath, 1981).

Most of the previous research on the effectsof newspaper crime coverage on perceptionsof crime has shared the same conceptualbias—it is based on global rather than com-ponent analysis of crime reports. That is, re-searchers have treated crime news as a largelyunidimensional entity, ignoring differences indegree of detail, style of presentation, and rel-evance of the crime for the average reader.Newspaper crime coverage has most often beenoperationalized as the number of crime stories(e.g., Cirino, 1974), the amount of space de-voted to crime stories (e.g., Otto, 1962), andthe percentage of the news devoted to crime(e.g., Gordon & Heath, 1981). Some research-ers have made gross distinctions between typesof crimes, differentiating, for example, betweenviolent and property crimes (e.g., Cirino, 1974;Heath, Gordon, & LeBailly, 1981). Others havenoted the presence or absence of accompa-nying graphics and the prominence of display

263

264 LINDA HEATH

within the newspaper (e.g., Gordon & Heath,1981).

But even these finer distinctions do not allowdiscrimination between newspaper accountsof a sensational gangland slaying and a randomstreetcorner murder. Nor can these analysesdifferentiate between reports of crimes thatoccurred in the newspaper's locality and thosethat happened thousands of miles away. Globalanalysis of newspaper crime coverage entailsthe assumption that all crime reports areequally fear provoking. Component analysis,on the other hand, is based on the assumptionthat detail and perspective in crime articlescan influence the level of fear aroused by read-ing about crime.

This assumption is tested in this article byan analysis of three components of newspapercrime coverage: sensationalism, apparent ran-domness of victim selection, and crime lo-cation. These three key components are basedon the social psychological theorizing con-cerning attribution of control, normativeness,and downward comparison.

Attribution of control. People have a generaltendency to prefer to be in control of theirenvironments, in areas as diverse as noise(Glass & Singer, 1972), bureaucracy (Glass &Singer, 1972), crime (Janoff-Bulman, 1979;Medea & Thompson, 1974), spinal injury(Bulman & Wortman, 1977), and plant wa-tering (Langer & Rodin, 1976; Rodin & Lan-ger, 1977). Although there is some individualvariation in the extent to which people perceivethemselves as being in control (Rotter, 1966),having control and perceiving control (at leastin situations involving little or no disconfir-mation of control) are generally adaptive forintellectual (Glass & Singer, 1972) and emo-tional (Brown & Heath, in press; Heath, 1980;Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Taylor, 1982) function-ing. Walster (1966) posited that people engagein self-protective attributions to convincethemselves that they will not be victims ofnegative events. According to her formulation,in threatening situations, onlookers can gaincontrol by attributing responsibility for theoutcome to some characteristic or action ofthe victim. Then, onlookers can convincethemselves that they are not like the victimsor would not take similar actions and aretherefore safe from harm. Without informa-tion concerning victim characteristics or pre-

cipitating actions, onlookers cannot engage inself-protective attributions.

Newspapers differ in the amount of infor-mation they provide concerning crime victims,particularly in regard to precipitating factorsinvolving the victims. The presence of pre-cipitating factors indicates that actions takenby the victim increased the likelihood that heor she would become a crime victim, not thatthe victim caused the crime or deserved to bevictimized. The total lack of victim precipi-tation indicates that the victim was chosenvirtually at random.

A crime that occurred during our data col-lection period illustrates differences betweenvarious newspapers' attentiveness to precipi-tating details: A man and a woman were ac-costed and severely beaten in their home in amiddle-class neighborhood. No robbery wascommitted, and the assailants were still atlarge. One local newspaper ended the accountthere. The other newspaper added the infor-mation that the male victim had recently beenindicted on several counts of promoting ju-venile prostitution. In the first account, thecrime appeared to be random and lacking mo-tivation. The second account included a pos-sible precipitating factor and made the crimeseem less random, providing readers with theinformation necessary for self-protective at-tributions.

From the perceived control theoreticalframework, the following hypothesis is derived:

HI: The absence of information about precipitating eventsin newspaper crime reports will be associated with highlevels of fear among readers.

Normativeness. Criminal acts are viola-tions not only of our legal code but also ofthe normative code that governs behavior insociety. Criminal acts vary in the number ofsocial norms they violate and the severity ofthe violations. Infanticide, for example, vio-lates both the norms against murder and alsothe norms that dictate protection and nur-turance of the young. Trying to put one's mur-dered wife down the garbage disposal violatesnot only the norm against murder but also thenorm that proscribes desecration of the dead.Sensational crimes achieve their spine-chillingquality from either severe violations of socialnorms or from violations of deeply engrainedsocial norms.

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 265

Sensational crimes are also nonnormativein the sense of being unusual or unexpected,both factors that contribute to the memora-bility of events (Hastie, 1981; Taylor &Crocker, 1981). Although the exact cognitiveprocess that leads to increased recall of dis-tinctive, unexpected events is not clearly un-derstood, reports of bizarre, violent crimesshould be better remembered than reports ofmundane crimes, and this memorabilityshould, according to previous research (Tyler,1980), lead to perceptions of crime danger inthe environment.

Clearly, sensational crimes contain manyconfounded dimensions, ranging from unex-pectedness to extremity of concern with sexand violence. All of these confounded dimen-sions, however, could lead to greater impacton perceptions of crime. These various theo-retical statements concerning normativenessall lead to the following hypothesis:

H2: The prevalence of sensational crimes in newspaperreporting will be associated with high levels of fear amongreaders.

Downward comparison. Downward com-parison theory (Wills, 1981) posits that in neg-ative situations people can reduce anxiety andincrease their subjective well-being by com-paring themselves with others in more direstraits. Although people prefer comparisonswith similar others in positive situations (Fes-tinger, 1954), comparisons with dissimilarothers are preferred in negative situations(Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Brickman &Campbell, 1971). The reduction in tension andanxiety associated with such downward com-parisons has been demonstrated in negativesituations ranging from receiving electric shock(e.g., Zimbardo & Formica, 1963) to doingpoorly on a test (e.g., Brickman, 1975) to con-tracting cancer (e.g., Taylor, 1982).

Newpaper crime reports afford opportunityfor downward comparisons in regard to crimevictimization, because newspapers present notonly reports of local (and therefore somewhatsimilar) crime victims, but also reports aboutnonlocal crimes. The ratio of local to nonlocalcrime reports in a newspaper is largely theresult of editorial decisions rather than localcrime environment. Some editorial staffsopenly decide to downplay local crime news.Other staffs decide to "featurize" crime re-

porting, resulting in increased coverage of localcrimes because of the greater accessibility ofneighbors, lovers, and families of local suspectsand victims. Still other staffs decide to devotemajor resources to other sections of the news-paper, which could result in greater relianceon the less expensive wire (and therefore non-local) crime information. These forces resultin substantial variation in the proportions oflocal crime coverage, as will be detailed laterin this article.

The crime environment in other locales canappear worse not only in regard to number ofcrimes (evidenced by the proportion on non-local crimes reported in the newspaper) butalso in regard to the type of crime that occursin other places. Environments that are char-acterized by crime that is sensational and/orrandom could be deemed worse than envi-ronments with nonsensational, nonrandomcrimes. The worse the crime environment ap-pears to be elsewhere, the safer a reader should,according to downward comparison theory,feel in his or her own environment. This leadsto the last hypothesis:

H3: Factors that increase fear when occuring in the im-mediate locale (i.e., randomness and sensationalism) de-crease fear when they occur elsewhere.

These hypotheses will be examined withdata from two sources: a quasi experimentbased on a telephone survey of readers ofnewspapers that vary in the proportion of newsabout local, random, and sensational crimes,and a laboratory experiment.

Study 1: Nonequivalent Control GroupQuasi Experiment

Method

Overview. Perceptions of crime among readers ofnewspapers with different crime reporting styles were ex-amined within a reversed treatment, nonequivalent controlgroup design (Cook & Campbell, 1979).' Newspapers wereclassified through content analysis into a three-way factorialdesign according to their proportion of local, random, andsensational crime reports. The perceptions of crime amongreaders of these newspapers were assessed through a tele-phone survey.

1 This design differs from classical experimental designbecause respondents are not randomly assigned to con-dition, resulting in potential nonequivalencies between re-spondents in various conditions.

266 LINDA HEATH

Target newspaper selection. All crime articles that ap-peared in the local press of 42 American cities during oneconstructed week (i.e., one random Monday, one randomTuesday, etc.) over a one-month period were content an-alyzed. Cities were roughly matched on size, minoritycomposition, socioeconomic status, and crime rate. Twentyof the cities had two local newspapers; 22 cities had onlyone local newspaper In all, 62 newspapers (1,926 articles)were content analyzed.

On the basis of this content analysis, newspapers wereclassified according to the percentage of crime articlesdealing with local crime, random or nonprecipitated crime,and sensational crime. Locale refers to geographic locationof the crime inception, with local crimes including thosein the city of publication, surrounding suburbs, and smalltowns within the newspaper's local distribution area. Ran-domness refers to the lack of information that indicatesthe victim took some action that made him or her morevulnerable to criminal victimization. For example, if thenewspaper article stated that the victim was in a dangerousplace (e.g., a bar renown for brawls), engaged in a dangerousoccupation (e.g., drug dealer, Mafia member, night clerkat a convenience store), or took a dangerous action (e.g.,hitchhiking, leading a protest), the newspaper article wascoded as indicating some degree of victim precipitation.If no victim precipitation was evident, the crime was codedas nonprecipitated or random. Sensationalism refers tosensationalism intrinsic to the crime rather than sensa-tionalistic reporting style. Sensational crimes are thosethat are extremely violent and/or bizarreJ

Newspapers were classified into a three-way factorialframework, consisting of the Locale, Randomness, andSensationalism factors. Each factor has two levels, derivedthrough median split Newspapers from cities with onlyone local press were excluded if scores on two or morefactors fell within one percentage point of the median forthose factors. Six cities with one local newspaper did notmeet this criterion and were excluded. In addition to theabove criterion, newspapers from cities with two localnewspapers were also excluded if both newspapers fellwithin the same cells for the Sensationalism and Ran-domness factors. Twenty newspapers (representing ten cit-ies) did not meet these criteria. Table 1 presents the 36newspapers that met the criteria for inclusion in the finalsample, accompanied by each newspaper's classificationon the Locale, Randomness, and Sensationalism factors.

Participants Respondents for the telephone survey wereselected through a variant of Random Digit Dialing. Tele-phone numbers were selected from telephone directoriesfor each target city. These numbers were increased or de-creased by increments of one until one interview was com-pleted. Because each respondent was identified by a sep-arate randomly generated base number, this procedureresults in a random sample of respondents. This samplingmethod has the advantage of including respondents withunlisted numbers, while being more cost efficient thanstraight Random Digit Dialing. The disadvantage of thismethod is that areas of a city that received telephone num-bers sequentially (for example, a new housing developmentthat was composed of several housing units that openedsimultaneously) and that has a high percentage of unlistednumbers would be underrepresented in the sample. Becausecities rather than the more recently developed suburbswere the target areas, this risk was considered to be min-imal.

Interviews were conducted primarily during eveningsand on weekends to obtain more equal samples of womenand men. Potential respondents were asked to participatein a half-hour interview about media habits and views oncrime. Interviews were completed only for respondentswho read either a target newspaper or no newspaper atall. Respondents who read both target papers in cities withtwo local newspapers were included only if they clearlyread one of the papers as a primary paper and the otherpaper only occasionally. Twelve respondents were sampledfrom each target city with one local newspaper, and 18respondents were sampled from cities with two local news-papers. In all, 372 interviews were completed.3 Respondentswho read no local newspaper comprised 10.2% of thissample, and their data were removed from these analyses(resulting N = 335). Women were overrepresented in oursample, comprising 67% of the respondents who werenewspaper readers. Respondents ranged in age from 16 to83, with the median age at 36 years. All income levels andeducation levels were represented, with high school grad-uates representing 42% of the overall sample as well asthe median education level. Most respondents were eitheremployed (42%) or homemakers (29%), with the rest beingstudents (8%), retired (14%), unemployed (6%), or disabled(1%). Respondents with household incomes under $20,000per year comprised 48% of the sample.

Experimenters. Interviews were conducted by a teamof 7 female undergraduates who had been trained in tele-phone survey techniques. Interview order was balancedso that each interviewer conducted an equal proportionof interviews for all target cities.

Materials. A standard interview schedule was con-structed for this study. Key variables assessed newspaperhabits (e.g., frequency, time, percent of newspaper read,identification of primary and secondary newspapers), per-ceptions of crime, victimization experiences (e.g., violentand property crimes committed against self or others closeto respondent), and demographics (e.g., sex, age, income,education).

Three different aspects of fear of crime were measured:fear in neighborhood, fear downtown, and fear for teen.Previous research has shown that fear levels vary dependingon location (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981)andonthepreceivedvulnerability of the target (Gordon, Riger, LcBailly, &Heath, 1980). Consequently, measures of these variousaspects of fear were included in the survey.

The items measuring fear of crime were preceded bythe lead, "Now I'd like to ask you some questions aboutcrime in (target city)." The perception of neighborhoodsafety was measured by the following item: "How safe doyou feel out on the streets in your neighborhood alone atnight? Very Safe, Somewhat Safe, Somewhat Unsafe, orVery Unsafe?" In addition, respondents' perceptions ofsafety in the downtown areas of their cities were assessed

2 These three variables were coded by two independentraters. Coding disagreements occurred on fewer than twopercent of the items. In cases of disagreement, the codersconferred with the author to determine the appropriatecode for the variable.

3 Completion rate among potential respondents was 61%.The demographics for this sample match the overall de-mographics for the cities we contacted, except for an over-sampling of women.

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 267

by the following: "How about downtown in your city atnight? How safe do you feel when alone at night out onthe street? Would you say you feel Very Safe, SomewhatSafe, Somewhat Unsafe, or Very Unsafe?" Finally, in orderto tap views about general safety, as opposed to personalsafety, we also asked "How safe do you think a teenagegirl would be out alone on the streets of your city at night?Very Safe, Somewhat Safe, Somewhat Unsafe, or VeryUnsafe?"

Results and Discussion

Examination of possible confounding vari-ables. The interpretability of results from anonequivalent control group design depends,

in large part, on the absence of other variablesthat co-vary with the independent variablesunder consideration. Three types of possibleconfounding variables were examined in re-lation to the newspaper stylistic components:demographic variables, victimization vari-ables, and number of crime stories.

Demographic variables examined for pos-sible confounding relations included sex, age,income, and education. Age was found to betotally unrelated to the newspaper componentvariables, so any age effect on perceptions ofcrime would be equally distributed across cells

Table 1Newspaper Identification and Classification on the Locale, Sensationalism, and Randomness Variables

City

Akron, OHCharleston, WVCharleston, WVChattanooga, TNChattanooga, TNCleveland, OHCleveland, OHDallas, TXDallas, TXDenvei; CODenver, COFlint, MIFt. Worth, TXFremont, CAFresno, CAGrand Rapids, MIJersey City, NJLas Vegas, NVLas Vegas, NVLubbock, TXMeridian, MSNashville, TNNashville, TNOmaha, NEPeoria,ILRockford, ILSan Bernadino, CAScranton, PAScranton, PATacoma, WAToledo, OHTulsa,OKTulsa,OKYork, PAYork, PAYoungstown, OH

Newspaper

JournalDaily MailGazetteTimesFree PressPlain DealerPressTimesMorning NewsPostRocky Mt. NewsJournalStarArgusBeePressJournalReviewSunJournalStarBannerTennesseanWorld HeraldStarStarSunTribuneTimesNews TribuneBladeTribuneDaily WorldDispatchDaily RecordVindicator

%Locala

19 (low)27 (low)22 (low)18 (low)20 (low)55 (high)53 (high)29 (low)15 (low)50 (high)20 (low)22 (low)33 (low)12 (low)41 (high)35 (high)59 (high)44 (high)28 (low)44 (high)53 (high)52 (high)24 (low)17 (low)47 (high)45 (high)31 (low)46 (high)35 (high)55 (high)33 (low)30 (low)26 (low)38 (high)33 (low)57 (high)

% Sensational"

52 (high)61 (high)43 (low)60 (high)37 (low)77 (high)61 (high)48 (high)53 (high)44 (high)35 (low)58 (high)38 (low)50 (high)67 (high)49 (high)27 (low)35 (low)48 (high)48 (high)21 (low)29 (low)42 (low)41 (low)25 (low)41 (low)68 (high)15 (tow)30 (low)50 (high)13 (low)32 (low)58 (high)21 (low)54 (high)47 (high)

% Random"

81 (high)76 (high)77 (high)79 (high)59 (low)61 (low)72 (high)58 (low)75 (high)58 (low)69 (low)79 (high)63 (low)76 (high)68 (low)69 (low)80 (high)70 (low)64 (low)65 (tow)85 (high)92 (high)67 (low)78 (high)79 (high)78 (high)74 (high)67 (low)

100 (high)65 (low)33 (low)57 (low)58 (low)79 (high)

100 (high)57 (low)

Number ofcrime articles

232721334623234430343231314346397541364219293154324236322334294924282532

Note. The words in parentheses indicate each newspaper's classification on each variable.1 Median = 33; range = 12-59; n (low) = 19; n (high) = 17."Median = 44; range = 13-77; n (low) = 17; n (high) = 19.'Median = 70; range = 33-100; n (low) = 18; n (high) = 18.

268 LINDA HEATH

in the major analyses, perhaps increasing theerror term but not biasing the results. Sex,however, was significantly related to the localevariable, F\l, 302) = 3.95, p < .05, withwomen being overrepresented among readersof newspapers with high proportions of localcrime reports (71% women in the high locale,compared with 63% women in the low localecell). Uncorrected, this pattern could result inan overrepresentation of the level of fearamong readers of newspapers with high pro-portions of local crime reports (becausewomen generally report higher levels of fearof crime than men do). Therefore, sex wasentered as a variable in the newspaper analyses.

Income level of respondents snowed a sig-nificant relation to the interaction between thesensationalism and randomness componentsof newspaper style, F\l, 302) = 4.16, p < .05.Although none of the comparisons of individ-ual cells in this analysis reached standard levelsof significance, the general pattern indicatedthat among readers of newspapers with a lotof local coverage of crime, higher levels of sen-sationalism were related to lower income levelsamong readers. Education showed a marginallysignificant relation to the interaction betweenthe randomness and locale newspaper com-ponents, F\ 1,326) = 3.84, p < .051, although,again, none of the comparisons between in-dividual cells was significant. The general pat-tern here indicated that newspapers that pres-ent a lot of local, random crime are read bypeople with lower education levels than arenewspapers with a lot of local, nonrandomcrime. This relation is problematic becauseprevious research has shown that people withless education report higher levels of fear thando more educated people, and, consequently,this pattern could introduce bias in the hy-pothesized direction. Even given the marginalsignificance of this pattern, we adopted theconservative approach and included education(based on a median split) as a factor in ouranalyses of newspaper component effects.

Victimization variables were examined forpossible confounding effects because someprevious research has found crime victimi-zation to be related to fear of crime (althoughthis relation is not consistently found). Ourtarget cities were roughly matched on crimerate based on the UCR data. Because the UCR

data are not perfect indicators of actual crimerate, we also collected victimization data dur-ing our telephone survey. Respondents wereasked about serious and less serious (e.g., theft)crimes that had happened to themselves or topeople close to them. Serious victimization toeither the respondent or to someone close tothe respondent was totally unrelated to thenewspaper variables, as was less serious vic-timization to the respondent. Less serious vic-timization to others, however, was significantlyrelated to all three main newspaper componentvariables. The significant relation with therandomness variable, F{1, 326) = 6.64, p <.05, indicated that people who knew victimsof less serious crimes were more likely to readnewspapers with low proportions of randomcrimes than were people who did not knowcrime victims. The relation with sensation-alism, F{\, 326) = 5.69, p < .05), indicatedthat people who knew crime victims were likelyto read newspapers that printed less sensationalcrime news, and the relation with locale, F{1,326) = 8.90, p < .005) revealed that peoplewho knew victims of less serious crimes weremore likely to read newspapers that presentedlittle local crime news than were people whodid not know victims.

Because previous research has presentedconflicting results concerning the relation be-tween victimization and fear, and because thisvictimization measure is both indirect (thatis, victimization of another rather than self)and concerned with less serious crimes, therelationship between the victimization mea-sure and fear of crime in this sample was an-alyzed. No significant relations were revealedbetween this victimization variable and themain fear of crime variables in these data (feardowntown, f(326) = .88, ns; fear for teen,f(329) = .59, ns; fear in neighborhood,4330) = .61, ns). The lack of relation betweenthis victimization variable and the fear mea-sures indicates that this variable would notproduce bias in the main analyses.

The final variable examined for possibleconfounding effects was the number of crimestories published in the newspaper. On the ba-sis of the content analysis data, number ofstories does not correlate significantly with anyof the three main newspaper component vari-ables (number of stories, sensationalism, r =

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 269

.20, p> .10; number of stories, locale, r =

.03, p > .40; number of stories, randomness,r = .17, p > .15). Analysis of variance withnumber of stories as the dependent variableshowed no main effects for newspaper stylisticcomponents, but significant 2-way interactionsamong all the stylistic components did emerge,7=1(1, 327) = 4.92, p < .05 (Sensationalism XLocale), F{\, 327) = 23.39, p < .005 (Sen-sationalism X Randomness), F{\, "ill) =19.11, p < .005 (Locale X Randomness). Al-though the significance level on these inter-actions might be inflated because number ofstories is a newspaper-level rather than re-spondent-level variable, causing nonrandomerror to be introduced into the data, theserelations are still problematic. Number of sto-ries (based on a median split) was thereforeentered as a factor along with the other stylisticcomponent variables in analyses of all the fearof crime variables. In no instance did the maineffect for number of stories or any interactioninvolving number of stories reach the standardlevel of significance. Differences among thenumber of crime articles appearing in differenttypes of newspapers is therefore less plausibleas an alternative explanation for results ob-tained in the main analyses.

Newspaper stylistic component effects onperceptions of crime. Five-way ANOVAS wereconducted on the fear of crime variables,4 withthe three component variables (Randomness,Sensationalism, and Locale) and two demo-graphic variables (Sex and Education) includedas independent variables. The three fear ofcrime variables included fear in neighborhood,fear downtown, fear for teen.5

Concerning how safe the respondents felton the streets in their own neighborhoods atnight, analysis indicated that women are morefearful than men are in their own neighbor-hoods, fU, 305) = 30.56, p < .001 (Ms =2.25 for women and 1.58 for men, with a highscore indicating high fear). Additionally, lesseducated respondents reported higher levels offear than did more educated respondents, F\ 1,305) = 4.41, p < .05 (Ms = 2.19 for less ed-ucated and 1.85 for more educated respon-dents). None of the hypothesized main effectsor interactions involving newspaper variableswas statistically significant. These analysesreplicated previous findings regarding demo-

Table 2Mean Levels of Fear DowntownRandomness and Locale

Local

3.19(.94)(77)

2.97(1.10)(87)

Random

Nonrandom

by

Nonlocal

2.73(1.13)(82)

3.11(.98)(81)

Note. Fear downtown has a 4-point range, with a highscore indicating high fear level. SD and cell ns in paren-theses.

graphic differences in perceptions of crime andindicate that factors other than newspaperpresentations of crime are responsible for levelsof fear of crime in immediate residential areas.

Perceptions of safety on the streets in thedowntown areas at night also showed a sexdifference, F{1, 301) = 75.15, p < .001, withwomen reporting higher levels of fear than men(Ms = 3.33 for women and 2.32 for men). Inaddition, the interaction between the Ran-domness and Locale variables, F{1, 301) =4.61, p< .05 indicates that newspaper stylisticcomponents, although not influencing neigh-borhood fear levels, do influence the level offear associated with downtown areas (see Table2 for cell means). Cell-wise comparisons in-dicate that, as predicted, an above median

4 Four- and five-way interactions were not computedbecause cell ns fell below acceptable limits for these anal-yses. This reduces the number of F ratios generated peranalysis and thus reduces the possibility of Type I errorusing uncorrected F values.

5 The first order correlations among these variables areas follows: fear in neighborhood, fear downtown, r = .46,p < .001; fear in neighborhood, fear for teen, r = .38,p < .001; fear downtown, fear for teen, r = .62, p < .001.These three items were designed to tap different aspectsof fear and are therefore presented separately rather thancombined into a scale. Analysis of an additive scale com-posed of these three fear items, however, reveals the samepattern of interaction between locale and randomness, f{\,292) = 6.76, p < .01) and locale and sensationalism, F(l,292) = 4.48, p < .05) as do the fear downtown and fearfor teen items.

270 LINDA HEATH

proportion of newspaper articles about localcrimes was associated with higher levels of fearamong readers if most of the crimes were pre-sented as being random rather than precipi-tated, F[ 1,301) = 5.73, p < .05. Among readersof an above median proportion of nonlocalcrimes, however, random crimes were asso-ciated with less fear than were nonrandomcrimes, F(\, 301) = 5.62 p < .05. As predicted,aspects of crimes that are frightening whenthey occur in the immediate locale are reas-suring when they occur elsewhere. No othercell-wise comparisons resulted in significantdifferences.

As with randomness, the effect of sensa-tionalism also depends on the locale in whichthe crime occurred, F{\, 301) = 6.83, p < .01(see Table 3). The decomposition into simplemain effects indicate that, as predicted, readingabout sensational crimes is more frighteningif the crimes occurred in the reader's localethan if the crimes occurred elsewhere, F{1,301) = 10.36,/? < .005. Reading articles aboutnonsensational crimes, however, is associatedwith lower levels of fear if the crimes occurredin the immediate locale than if they occurredelsewhere, F{1, 301) = 4.54, p < .05. Finally,as predicted, readers of newspapers that pre-sent mainly articles about sensational crimesthat happened elsewhere exhibit less fear thando readers of articles about nonsensationalcrimes that happened elsewhere, F(l, 301) =9.69, p < .005. Again, the worse things areelsewhere, the better we feel about our im-mediate environment.

In order to unconfound personal vulnera-bility from perception of the crime environ-ment, we asked respondents how safe theythought a teenage girl would be alone on thestreets downtown in their cities at night. Themain effect for sex, F{1, 304) = 22.24, p <.005 indicates that women judge the teenagegirl to be less safe than men do (Ms = 3.52and 3.07, respectively, with higher scores in-dicating less safety). The interaction betweenthe locale and randomness variables, F\l,304) = 8.25, p < .005, indicates that, as hy-pothesized, reading about random crimes thatoccurred elsewhere is associated with less fearthan reading abut nonrandom crimes that oc-curred elsewhere, f{ 1,304) = 11.64, p < .005.Additionally, there is a marginally significantsimple effect indicating that random crimes

Table 3Mean Levels of Fear DowntownSensationalism and Locale

Local

3.12(1.03)(74)

3.03(1.04)(90)

Sensational

Nonsensational

by the

Nonlocal

2.73(1.12)(92)

3.17(.94)(71)

Note SD and cell ns in parentheses.

occurring locally are more frightening thanprecipitated crimes that occur locally, F(l,304) = 3.54, p < . 10 (see Table 4 for means).

In addition, analysis of the fear for teenvariable revealed an unpredicted interactionbetween sex and sensationalism, P(l, 304) =8.32, p < .005. Female respondents who readnewspapers that presented a high proportionof sensational crime news reported higher lev-els of fear than did women who read news-papers with less sensational crimes news, F{1,304) = 9.10, p < .005 (Ms = 3.61 and 3.43,respectively). For men, however, the patternwas reversed. Men who read newspapers thatpresented a high proportion of sensationalcrime news thought that a teenage girl wouldbe safer on the streets than did men who readnewspapers with less sensational crime news,Fll, 304) = 9.15, p < .005 (Ms = 2.89 and3.27, respectively). The most pronounced cell-wise difference exists between men and womenwho read newspapers with high proportionsof sensational crime news, with women judgingthe teenage girl to be much less safe than themen do, F{1, 304) = 37.87, p < .001. Perhapsthe use of female interviewers, combined withthe higher level of fear among women and theuse of a female target person, lead to his pat-tern. Were this pattern obtained for a personalfear variable, we could invoke some self-de-fensive dynamic to try to account for it. Be-cause this variable concerns safety of a hy-pothetical teenage girl, however, we have nei-ther a theoretical base nor adequate data toexplain this puzzling finding.

Overall, these findings indicate that com-

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 271

Table 4Mean Levels of Fear for Teen by Locale.and Randomness

Local

3.42(.78)(76)

3.31(.87)(87)

Random

Nonrandom

Nonlocal

3.22(.83)(85)

3.55(.70)(82)

Note Fear for teen has a 4-point range, with a high scoreindicating high fear. SD and cell ns are in parentheses.

ponents of newspaper crime articles do notinfluence fear of crime in the neighborhoodbut do influence fear associated with down-town areas. These analyses revealed the hy-pothesized interactions among newspapercomponents in relation to fear of crime. Spe-cifically, the effects of the randomness andsensationalism evident in newspaper reportsof crime depend on the locale in which thecrime occurred. Among newspapers that re-port a high proportion of local crime, the effectof randomness matches predictions from per-ceived control formulations. That is, randomcrimes are scary. Without some indication ofvictim precipitation evident in the newspaperarticle, readers cannot convince themselvesthat they could not also be victimized by sucha crime. This high level of fear is evident bothin regard to personal fear and fear for others(i.e., a hypothetical teenage girl).

When newspaper articles concern crimesthat occur elsewhere, however, the tables areturned. As we predicted based on downwardcomparison theory, the worse crimes seem tobe elsewhere, the better things look in the im-mediate environment. Reading about a lot ofnonlocal random crimes is associated withlower levels of fear (both personal and general)than is reading about nonlocal precipitatedcrimes. And, although respondents foundreading about sensational crimes frighteningif the crimes happened near home, readingabout sensational crimes that happened some-where else was associated with lower levels offear.

These findings further indicate that crimereporting is not a unidimensional entity thatcan be adequately captured by simply countingor measuring crime articles. Even when theamount of crime information is controlled,variations in levels of sensationalism, victimprecipitation, and, most important, crime lo-cale are associated with variations in fear level.

Study 2: The Laboratory Experiment

Although quasiexperimental research donein field settings generally has greater externalvalidity than laboratory experiments, the fearthat lurks in every quasiexperimentalist's heartis that some unaccounted for variable is pro-ducing spurious effects. To allay this fear, alaboratory experiment was conducted in whichthe same conceptual variables were examinedunder controlled conditions.

MethodParticipants. Forty male and 40 female undergraduates

from the University of Minnesota participated in this ex-periment as an option in their introductory psychologycourse.

Materials Fictional crimes were constructed that eitherappeared to be random or precipitated and that were eitherclose to or distant from the respondent's social and geo-graphic spheres, creating a 2 X 2 factorial design. Weexpanded the locale variable from the quasi experimentto include both social and geographic distance for severalreasons (theoretical and pragmatic). First, predictions de-rived from downward comparison theory should hold forcomparisons with others who are socially as well as geo-graphically removed from the respondent The worse thingsare for others who are different from the respondent(whether the difference is based on socioeconomic status,age, or geography), the better the respondent should feelabout his or her own situation. Second, we could not plau-sibly maintain that we had access to records and interviewinformation from crimes that occurred at substantial dis-tances (i.e., in other states). Finally, because the under-graduate population is composed largely of commutersfrom the metropolitan area, we could not be certain thatlocations within the metropolitan areas were, in fact, distantfrom the respondents' homes.

Two types of information about each crime were pre-sented to the respondents: police incident reports and copiesof pages ostensibly from a reporter's notepad. The policeincident reports were official looking forms with infor-mation concerning the date of incident, incident, report,and response times (in military hours); decription of theincident, names and addresses of victims, suspects, andwitnesses; and the responding officers' names, badge num-bers, and unit numbers. To increase the versimilitude ofthis form, we included instructions regarding other forms(with three letter and eight number identifiers) that wereto be completed if the incident involved physical injury

272 LINDA HEATH

or more than one witness. In addition, the street addressesand phone numbers of suspects, victims, and witnesseswere blacked out on the research materials.

The second source of information concerning each crimeconsisted of copies of 5 X 7 notebook sheets containinghandwritten notes concerning the crime. The notes foreach crime were in different handwriting. The notes ba-sically restated and elaborated on the information in thepolice incident report.

Six basic crime scenarios were constructed. Each sce-nario was then altered to fit the four conditions. For ex-ample, one scenario involved a couple who was assaultedin a parking lot after an evening's entertainment Thealleged assailant was either unknown to the couple (randomcondition) or had been involved with the couple in analtercation over a spilled drink earlier in the evening (pre-cipitated condition). In addition, the entertainment waseither a dinner theater frequented by middle-aged clientelein a distant suburb (distal condition) or a rock concertnear the university (proximal condition). Each respondentwas presented descriptions of six crimes, representing oneof the four factorial cells.

Following each set of crime information, the respondentcompleted a one-page information rating form that assessedhow informative each type of information had been, whichfacts were most important for understanding the crime,and the merit of including information gained from theinterview. This form was included to ensure that respon-dents carefully read all the information presented in thecrime reports.

The dependent measures were presented following thesix crime scenarios. First, respondents completed a CurrentMood Assessment Scale that consisted of eight 9-pointbipolar scales. The key scales (Fearful/Safe, Relaxed/Ner-vous, Agitated/Calm, Upset/Relieved, Angry/Not Angry)were interspersed with filler items (e.g., Tired/Energetic,Amused/Somber). Respondents then replied to generalitems about perceptions of crime.

Procedure. Participants were scheduled in small groups(ranging in size from 2 to 5). A female experimenter metwith the group and delivered the cover story script andthe instructions.

In order to ensure that respondents read the materialscarefully, the study was presented as an evaluation of theimportance of personal interview information in news re-porting. Experimenters delivered the following introductoryspeech:

Journalists have two main sources of information forstories they write; official public statements and personalinterviews. The interviews are very expensive, so we'dlike to find out how effective interviews are and whetherthey are necessary. You will be rating different types ofinformation concerning the environment, the Minnesotabudget, and crime, and also rating the effects of thisinformation on people. The information you will readis from official public documents and from interviewsthat took place in April of this year. None of thesestories ever made it into the paper, so you most likelyhaven't heard about them.

We will divide you randomly into three groups. One-third of you will be reading environmental information,one-third will be reading crime information, and one-third will read about the Minnesota budget Before youbegin reading the newspaper information, you will be

given a short survey of all three areas so we can makesure that there are not drastic differences among thegeneral opinions of the people who get the three kindsof information.

Respondents were then taken to individual researchrooms and asked to complete a survey with five itemsconcerning the environment, five concerning crime, andfive concerning the budget. On completion of this survey,respondents were given the materials for the condition towhich they had been "randomly" assigned. In fact, allrespondents received materials for newspaper articles re-lating to crimes. The purported materials concerning thebudget and the environment were included to allow us tocollect pretest information concerning perceptions of crimein order to test the adequacy of our randomization pro-cedure.

When the respondents had completed the research ma-terials, they were fully debriefed and asked not to discussthe study with others.

Results6 and Discussion

Mood scale analysis. Included in the Cur-rent Mood Assessment Scale that respondentscompleted immediately after rating the crimereports were five items that related to generalemotional arousal. Only three of these items,however, produced a fear scale with adequatereliability (Safe/Fearful, Calm/Agitated, NotAngry/Angry; a = .77).

A 2 X 2 X 2 (Randomness X Proximity XSex) ANOVA was performed, with the three-

6 Adequacy of randomization. The gain from a true-experimental (as opposed to a quasi experimental) designis that the randomization procedure allows the researcherto presume that the treatment groups are comparable priorto the manipulation. Not wanting to be presumptuous,we examined the pretest scores for possible differencesamong respondents in the different conditions prior to ourmanipulation. Five items concerning perceptions of crimewere included in the pretest materials. These items con-cerning perceptions of crime were included in the pretestmaterials. These items assessed general risk of victimi-zation, personal risk of victimization, personal safety inthe neighborhood and downtown, and the extent to whichcrime is perceived to be a problem locally.

Five 2 X 2 X 2 (Randomness X Proximity X Sex) ANOVASwere performed with pretest items serving as the dependentvariables. Sex of respondent was significantly related toresponses concerning personal risk, F{\, 72) = 17.38,p < .001, and personal safety, both downtown, f{l, 72) =24.86, p < .001, and in the neighborhood F[\, 72) = 16.96,p < .001, with women expressing greater fear and riskthan men. Neither of the newspaper variables entered sig-nificant (or even marginally significant) relations with pre-test perceptions of crime. From this, we conclude that therandomization was successful and the different treatmentgroups were comparable in regard to crime perceptionsprior to the manipulation.

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 273

item Current Mood Assessment Scale servingas the dependent variable. The predicted two-way interaction between randomness andproximity was marginally significant, F\\,72) = 3.88, p = .053. Given the lack of de-nnitiveness of the above analysis, we createda composite of the two mood items that cor-related most highly (Safe/Fearful and Not An-gry/Angry). Entering this composite as the de-pendent variable, we found that women re-ported marginally higher levels of fear andanger than did men, F(\, 72) = 3.23, p < .10(Ms = 7.48 and 5.98, respectively). Addition-ally, the significant interaction between ran-domness and proximity, JFU, 72) = 4.65, p <.05, revealed that respondents who had ratedscenarios that presented crimes that were ap-parently random and that happened to peoplesocially and geographically close to the re-spondents reported marginally higher levels offear and anger than did respondents who ratedcrimes that were close but not random, F(\,72 = 2.87, p < .10, or random but not close,F(l, 72) = 2.83, p < .10).7 (See Table 5 formeans). This essentially replicates the findingsfrom Study 1. Crimes that happen to peoplewho are socially and geographically close tous are more frightening if they are randomthan if they are precipitated. Random crimesthat happen to people distant from us are muchless frightening.

General crime perceptions. The CrimePerception Survey included both items aboutpersonal safety and more general items aboutperceptions of crime. Responses to the per-sonal safety items (such as, "How safe do youfeel out on the streets in your neighborhoodalone at night?") appeared to be unaffectedby the newspaper component manipulation.Only a sex difference consistently emergedfrom analysis of the safety items, with womenreporting higher levels of fear than men.

Responses to more general crime perceptionitems, however, were affected by characteristicsof the crime reports. Respondents were askedto indicate whether they thought crime in then-city was a big problem, somewhat of a prob-lem, or not much of a problem. A three-wayANOVA (Proximity X Randomness X Sex) re-vealed once again that women reported higherlevels of concern than men, F\l, 72) = 5.75,p < .05 (Ms = 2.10 and 1.87, respectively).In addition, the significant interaction between

Table 5Mean Levels of Fear and Anger byRandomness and Proximity

Proximal

7.75(3.58)

5.75(3.89)

Random

Nonraodom

Distal

5.90(3.57)

7.50(3.93)

Note. High scores indicate high levels of fear and anger.Cell ns = 20. SD in parentheses.

randomness and proximity, F\\, 72) = 5.87,p < .05, indicated that respondents who hadread about random crimes that happen to vic-tims socially and geographically close tothemselves rated crime as more of a problemthan did respondents who read about crimesthat were close but not random, or randombut not close, Fs(l, 72) = 4.60, 5.11,/? < .05,respectively. In addition, as predicted, respon-dents who rated scenarios about randomcrimes that were distant thought the localproblem was less acute than did respondentswho read about precipitated distant crimes,F\\, 72) = 5.1 \,p < 0.5. Finally, respondentswho rated scenarios concerning precipitatedcrimes rated local crime as less of a problemif the crimes were proximal rather than distal,F(\, 72) = 4.60, p < .05, (see Table 6).

Respondents indicated their agreement ordisagreement with the following assertion"Crime is a random event. It can happen toanyone." Respondents who had rated scenariosconcerning random crimes were more likelyto agree with the assertion than were respon-dents who had rated scenarios involving pre-cipitated crimes, F(\, 71) = 4.55, p < .05(Ms = 4.00 and 3.69, respectively, with a highscore indicating agreement). Also, respondentswho rated crimes that were socially and geo-graphically proximal were more in agreementthan respondents who had rated distal crimes,

7 The fear and anger items correlate .55 (p < .001) and,analyzed separately, produce the same interactive patternas the combined analysis at marginal levels of significance(for fear, F{\, 72) = 3.70, p = .059; for anger, I\l, 72) =3.62, p = . 061).

274 LINDA HEATH

Table 6Mean Assessment of Crime Problemby Randomness and Proximity

Proximal

2.10(.45)(20)

1.95(.22)(19)

Random

Nonrandom

Distal

1.80(.41)(20)

2.10(.55)(20)

Note. High scores indicate that crime was rated as a biggerproblem. SD and cell ns are in parentheses.

F\l, 71) = 5.01, p< .05 (Ms = 4.03 and 3.48,respectively), and women were more in agree-ment than men, F{1, 71) = 4.56, p < .05(Ms = 4.00 and 3.49, respectively). These threemain effects, however, were subsumed undera three-way interaction, F{1, 71) = 7.26, p <.01, (see Table 7 for means). Men who hadrated scenarios that presented precipitated,distal crimes disagreed more strongly with theassertion than did men who rated scenariosabout precipitated proximal crimes or random,distal crimes Fs(l, 71) = 9.24 and 9.89, p <.01, respectively. A different pattern is apparentamong women, howeyer. Women who ratedscenarios concerning random, proximal crimeswere marginally more likely to agree with theassertion than were women who read aboutprecipitated, proximal or random, distalcrimes, i=s(l, 72) = 2.82 and 3.56, p < .10,respectively. That is, men appear to be mostinfluenced by reading about crimes that por-tend safety (i.e., precipitated, distal), whereaswomen appear to be most influenced by read-ing about crimes that portend danger (i.e.,random, proximal).

These findings indicate, as did the surveyfindings, that media effects are not simple ef-fects. The proximity of the crime victim tothe respondent interacts with the apparentrandomness of the crime in determining moodand general perceptions of crime. As predicted,factors that are associated with increased fearwhen the crime is close at hand are reassuringwhen the crime is distant. Random crimes arefrightening when they are proximal (in social

and geographic terms) and reassuring whenthey are distal. These patterns are revealed inboth mood measures and measures of generalcrime environment perceptions. In regard tothe general nature of crime, men appear tobe willing, given the appropriate cues, to seecrime as nonrandom, whereas women appearmore likely, given appropriate cues, to seecrime as random.

General Discussion

Two general conclusions can be drawn fromthese findings. First, social psychological the-ories fare pretty well in the mass media world.All three theoretical frameworks used to iden-tify key media components in this researchreceived support from the findings. As down-ward comparison theory predicts, comparisonof one's own situation with that of someonein more dire straits results in more satisfactionwith the immediate situation. The more news-papers print articles about criminals in otherplaces running amok, picking victims at ran-dom, and trampling social norms, the moresecure readers feel in their own environments.In essence, readers like the grass to be browneron the other side of the fence, and the brownerthe better. Far from being frightening, reportsof grizzly, bizarre crimes in other cities arereassuring. Readers are still exposed to some

Table 7Mean Endorsement of Crime As a Random Eventby Sex, Randomness, and Proximity

Male

Proximal

3.80 .(1.32)(10)

3.89(1.17)

(9)

Distal

3.90(1.10)(10)

Female

Proximal

Random

4.60(.70)(10)

Nonrandom

2-40 3.80(1.43) (.63)(10) (10)

Distal

3.70(.95)(10)

3.90(1.10)(10)

Note. A high score indicates strong agreement with theassertion.SD and cell ns are in parentheses.

MEDIA CRIME AND FEAR 275

reports of crimes that occur locally, but theseverity and outrageousness of such crimesappear to be judged in comparison with crimesfrom other places.

When the crimes are occurring on the localturf, however, the tables are turned. As pre-dicted from perceived control theorizing,readers do not appreciate criminals choosingtheir victims at random (or, at least, mediaaccounts that make it appear so). Reports ofcrimes that lack rhyme or reason are fright-ening. If the victim apparently did nothing toprecipitate the crime, then the reader can donothing to avoid the crime. If, on the otherhand, the victim took some action that madehim or her more vulnerable to the victimi-zation, then the reader can avoid that actionand presumably remain safe. And, finally, thepredictions regarding nonnormative behaviorare confirmed. Reports of bizarre, violentcrimes are frightening if the crime occurredlocally. This fear is not attributable to sen-sationalistic reporting style on the part of thenewspaper, but, rather, to the sensationalismintrinsic to the crime itself. The unexpected,the quirky, the heinous crimes that are re-ported in newspapers increase fear of crimeamong readers in that crime locality, even ifthe reporting style itself is nonsensational.

A second general conclusion that can bedrawn from this research is that not all crimereports are equally fear provoking, which hasconceptual, methodological, and practical im-plications. Conceptually, researchers need topay attention to aspects or components ofcrime reports, rather than treating crime newsas a unidimensional entity. Methodologically,researchers need to be aware that global op-erationalizations of newspaper crime reporting(i.e., simple counts or measurements of crimenews) can lead to the erroneous conclusionthat newspaper crime reports do not influencefear of crime. In this research, for example,the number of crime stories printed by thenewspapers showed no relation to readers'perceptions of crime, although components ofthe crime reports did. And, finally, on thepractical level, policy implications derivedfrom analysis of the components of crime cov-erage rather than crime coverage in generalwould probably be more useful and palatableto news personnel. Analyses of the componentsof crime coverage allow journalists options for

altering crime reporting without sacrificing itentirely. Consequently, component analysis ismore likely to be attended to and acted onthan is global analysis. (See Cook, Kendzierski,& Thomas, 1983, for a similar analysis in re-gard to research on television and aggression.)

The implications of these research findingsfor journalists are three-fold. First, decisionsconcerning the mix of local and nonlocal crimenews should be made carefully, because therelative proportions of local and nonlocal newsinfluences the impact of these stories on read-ers. In addition to being readily available andrelatively inexpensive, wire news reports mol-lify the fear aroused by reports of local crimes.Second, the inclusion of information con-cerning precipitating actions taken by the vic-tim, although more difficult to obtain and ver-ify, reduces the fear aroused in readers, par-ticularly in regard to local crimes. Of course,the decision to include such informationshould take into account factors other thanfear potential (e.g., harm to victim resultingfrom publication of such information), butthe exclusion of such information in regardto local crimes causes readers to experiencehigh (and probably unwarranted) levels of fear.Finally, the sensational aspects of local crimesshould be presented with caution, because re-ports of sensational local crimes arouse fearamong readers. The effects of reports of sen-sational local crimes are not removed by re-porting information concerning victim pre-cipitation. Nonlocal, sensational crimes, on theother hand, are reassuring to readers regardingthe safety of the local crimes environment andcould be used to offset the frightening effectsof local sensational crimes.

Overall, the current research shows that de-tails in newspaper articles do make a differencein the effect of the article on perceptions ofcrime. Similar effects emerged in both the nat-uralistic setting (with all its problematic thirdvariable explanations) and the laboratory set-ting (with its tight control and weaker manip-ulation). The theoretical formulations (attri-bution of control, social comparison, andnorm violations) proved useful for selectingkey variables and, in turn, received supportfrom the findings. In sum, psychological theorycan contribute to media research, and mediamessages can be used to test psychologicaltheory.

276 LINDA HEATH

References

Baker, M. H., Nienstedt, B. G, Everett, R. S., & McCleary,R. (1983). The impact of a crime wave: Perceptions,fear, and confidence in the police. Law and Society Re-view. 17, 319-335.

Brickman, P. (197S). Adaptation level determinants ofsatisfaction with equal and unequal outcome distri-butions in skill and chance situations. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 32, 191-198.

Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and painin social comparison. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller(Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical andempirical perspectives (pp. 149-186). Washington, DC:Hemisphere.

Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic rela-tivism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley(Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287-302). New York:Academic Press.

Brown, S., & Heath, L. (in press). Coping with criticallife-events: An integrative cognitive-behavioral modelfor research and practice. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.),Handbook of counseling psychology. New York: Wiley.

Bulman, R. J., & Wortman, C. (1977). Attributions ofblame and coping in the "real world": Severe accidentvictims react to their lot. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 35, 351-363.

Cirino, R. (1974). Power to persuade. New York: Bantam.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-expen-

mentation. Design and analysis issues for field settingsChicago: Rand McNally.

Cook, T. D., Kendzierski, D. A., & Thomas, S. V. (1983).The implicit assumptions of television research: Ananalysis of the NIMH report on television and behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 161-201.

Davis, F. (1951). Crime news in Colorado newspapers.American Journal of Sociology, 57, 325-330.

Dominick, J. R. (1978). Crime and law enforcement inthe mass media. In C. Winick (Ed.), Deviance and massmedia (pp. 105-128). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Erskine, H. (1974). The polls: Fear of violence and crime.Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 131-145.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison pro-cesses. Human relations, 7, 117-140.

Glass, D. G, & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress NewYork: Academic Press.

Gordon, M. T, & Heath, L. (1981). The news business,crime, and fear. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Reactions to crime(pp. 227-250). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gordon, M. T, Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K., & Heath, L.(1980). Crime, women, and the quality of urban life.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, (3,Suppl.), S144-S160.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory.In E T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),Social cognition. The Ontario symposium, (Vol. 1, pp.39-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heath, L. (1980). A multi-methodological examination ofthe effects of perceptions of control on women's attitudes

toward and behaviors concerning rape. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evan-ston, Illinois.

Heath, L., Gordon, M. T, & LeBailly, R. (1981). Whatnewspapers tell us (and don't tell us) about rape. News-paper Research Journal, 2, 48-55.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus be-havioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-1809.

Jones, E. T. (1976). The press as metropolitan monitor.Public Opinion Quarterly, 40. 239-244.

Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choiceand enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: Afield experiment in an institutionalized setting. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191-198.

Medea, A., & Thompson, K. (1974). Against rape. NewYork: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Otto, H. A. (1962). Sex and violence on the Americannewsstand. Journalism Quarterly, 40, 19-26.

Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Boston:Little, Brown.

Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J (1977). Long-term effects of acontrol-relevant intervention with the institutionalizedaged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,897-902.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internalversus external control of reinforcement PsychologicalMonographs. 80 (Whole No. 609).

Ryan, M., & Owen, D. (1976). A content analysis of met-ropolitan newspaper coverage of social issues. JournalismQuarterly, 53. 634-640.

Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping withcrime: Individual and neighborhood reactions. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S. E. (1982). Social cognition and health. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 549-562.

Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases ofsocial information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P.Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition. TheOntario symposium, (Vol. 1, pp. 89-134), Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly expe-rienced events: The origin of crime-related judgmentsand behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology. 39. 13-28.

Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for anaccident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,3. 73-79.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles insocial psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.

Zimbardo, P. J., & Formica, R. (1963). Emotional com-parison and self-esteem as determinants of affiliation.Journal of Personality, 31, 141-162.

Received September 26, 1983Revision received February 6, 1984