Social Indicators Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 197–223 | Cite as

A twist on the heisenberg principle: Or, how crime affects its measurement

  • Elizabeth Martin
Article
Received:

Abstract

Evidence suggests that surveys of victimization are affected by large and systematic sources of bias which reduce the validity of comparisons over time and among geographical areas. This paper argues that the bias is especially severe because errors of measurement are correlated with the level of ‘true’ victimization. Evidence relevant to four hypothesized sources of bias is considered. First, it is hypothesized that lifestyle characteristics which are associated with victimization are also associated with respondent inaccessibility, resulting in the exclusion of victims from surveys. Second, coverage and response rates are lower in high crime areas, in part due to mutual avoidance by interviewers and respondents. Third, the social context influences rates of reporting and the classification of incidents of victimization. Finally, the bias introduced by variations in survey procedures is more severe when concepts are ambiguous and ill-defined. The hypotheses and evidence pertinent to them suggest that the measurement of trends and differences in victimization may be subject to large and fluctuating sources of error. Possible research strategies for investigating the sources of bias are suggested.

Keywords

Geographical Area Social Context Research Strategy Systematic Source High Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bailey, L., T. Moore, and B. Bailar: 1978, ‘An Interviewer variance study for the eight impact cities of the National Crime Survey cities sample,’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 73, pp. 16–23.Google Scholar
  2. Bayless, D., D. Boesel, and L. Piper: 1978, ‘Effects of survey conditions on Victimization response and response quality in surveying school crime,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Diego, California, August 1978.Google Scholar
  3. Biderman, A. D.: 1975, ‘Victimology and victimization surveys’ in I. Drapkin and E. Viano (eds.), Victimology: A New Focus, Vol. III, Crimes Victims and Justice, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  4. Biderman, A. D. and A. J. ReissJr.: 1967, ‘On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime’, The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. Block, R.: 1979, ‘Community, environment, and violent crime’, Criminology 17, pp. 46–57.Google Scholar
  6. Burgess, A. and A. Lazare: 1976, Community Mental Health: Target Populations, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bushery, J. M., C. D. Cowan, and L. R. Murphy: 1978, ‘Experiments in telephone-personal visit surveys,’ Paper presented at the meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Diego, California, August, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Clarren, S. and A. Schwartz: 1976, ‘Measuring a program's impact: A cautionary note,’ In Wesley Skogan (ed.) Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  9. Cowan, C. D., L. R. Murphy, and J. Weiner: 1978, ‘Effects of supplemental questions on victimization estimates from the National Crime Survey,’ Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Diego, California. 1978.Google Scholar
  10. Curtis, L. A. 1974, Criminal Violence: National Patterns and Behavior, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Dodge, R. and H. Lentzner: 1978, ‘Patterns of personal series incidents in the National Crime Survey,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, San Diego, California, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. Duncan, O. D.: 1969, Toward Social Reporting: Next Steps, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, C. O., G. M. Shapiro, L. R. Murphy, G. J. Stanko: 1978, ‘Interaction of survey questions as it relates to interviewer-respondent bias,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association meeting, San Diego, California, August 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Goldfield, E., A. Turner, C. Cowan, and J. Scott: 1977, ‘Privacy and confidentiality as factors in survey response,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 1977.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, B. H., R. A. Cooke, and A. S. Tannenbaum: 1978, ‘Research involving human subjects,’ Science 201, pp. 1094–1101.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkins, D.: 1977, Nonresponse in Detroit Area Study surveys: A Ten-Year Analysis. Working Papers in Methodology, No. 8, Chapel Hill, N. C.: Institute for Research in Social Science.Google Scholar
  17. Hindelang, M.: 1976, Criminal Victimization in Eight American Cities: A Descriptive Analysis of Common Theft and Assault, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  18. House, J. S. and S. Wolf: 1978, ‘Effects of urban residence on interpersonal trust and helping behavior,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, pp. 1029–1043.Google Scholar
  19. Howard, M.: 1975, ‘Police reports and victimization survey results: An empirical study,’ Criminology 12, pp. 433–446.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, E.: 1979, ‘Surveys as social indicators: Problems in monitoring trends,’ In Peter Rossi and James Wright (eds.) Handbook of Survey Research, New York: Academic Press (for incoming).Google Scholar
  21. Moore, J. and N. Rothwell: 1978, ‘Evaluation of the effectiveness of the public information campaign for the 1976 census of Camden, New Jersey,’ Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Bureau of the Census, April 26, 1978.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy, L.: 1975, ‘NCS-national sample: Extent of correspondence of households and persons between enumeration periods,’ Unpublished memorandum, U.S. Bureau of the Census, November 20, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. Parsons, C.: 1972, America's Uncounted People, Report of the Advisory Committee on Problems of Census Enumeration, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Penick, B. K. and M. OwensIII: 1976, Surveying Crime, Washington D. C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  25. Rossi, P., E. Waite, C. Bose, and R. Bork: 1974, ‘The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences,’ American Sociological Review 39, pp. 224–237.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, A. L.: 1976, ‘Victimization surveys and criminal justice system evaluation,’ in W. G. Skogan (ed.) Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, pp. 135–150.Google Scholar
  27. Schwartz, A. and S. Clarren: 1977, The Cincinnati Team Policing Experiment: A Summary Report, Washington D. C.: The Urban Institute and Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Skogan, W. G.: 1974, ‘The validity of official crime statistics: An empirical investigation,’ Social Science Quarterly 55, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
  29. Skogan, W. G.: 1976, ‘Crime and crime rates,’ in W. G. Skogan (ed.) Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, pp. 105–119.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, D.: 1976, ‘The aftermath of victimization: Fear and suspicion,’ in E. Viano (ed.) Victims and Society, Washington, D. C.: Visage Press, pp. 203–219.Google Scholar
  31. Sparks, R. F.: 1976, ‘Crimes and Victims in London,’ in W. G. Skogan (ed.) Sample Surveys of the Victims of Crime, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, pp. 43–71.Google Scholar
  32. Sparks, R., H. Genn, and D. Dodd: 1977, Surveying Victims: A Study of the Measurement of Criminal Victimization, Perceptions of Crime, and Attitudes to Criminal Justice, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  33. Stinchcombe, A., C. Heimer, R. A. Iliff, K. Scheppele, T. Smith, and D. G. Taylor: 1977, ‘Crime and punishment in public opinion: 1948–1974,’ Unpublished report, NORC.Google Scholar
  34. Tuchfarber, A. and W. Klecka: 1976, Random Digit Dialing: Lowering the Cost of Victimization Surveys, Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1970, ‘Victim recall pretest (Washington, D.C.) household survey victims of crime,’ unpublished memorandum 70–237, June 10, 1970.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1973, Census of Population and Housing 1970, Evaluation and Research Program PHC(E)-4, ‘Estimates of coverage of population by sex, race, and age: Demographic analysis,’ Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1977, ‘UCR-NCS comparisons, 1973–1976,’ Unpublished memorandum distributed by R. Dodge, Crime Statistics Analysis Staff, December 13, 1977.Google Scholar
  38. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: 1977, A Summary of Research Studies of Interviewing Methodology, 1959–1970 by C. F. Cannell. Vital and Health Statistics Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, No. 69, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  39. Valentine, C. A. and B. L. Valentine: 1971, ‘Missing men: A comparative methodological study of underenumeration and related problems,’ unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  40. Wilcox, S.: 1973, The Prevention and Control of Robbery, Vol. III, The Geography of Robbery, Davis: The University of California, The Center of Administration of Criminal Justice, April 1973.Google Scholar
  41. Wish, E. D., L. N. Robins, J. E. Helzer, M. Hesselbrock, and D. H. Davis: 1978, ‘Monday morning quarterbacking on limiting callbacks: Evidence from a panel study of veterans,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Roanoke, Virginia, June 1978.Google Scholar
  42. Yost, L. R. and R. W. Dodge: 1970, ‘Household survey of victims of crime, second pretest (Baltimore, Maryland),’ Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  43. Ziegenhagen, E.: 1976, ‘The recidivist victim of violent crime,’ Victimology 1, pp. 538–550.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations