Abstract
Supervision has been identified within criminology as an important element of crime prevention; however, little is known about the individual factors that explain this behaviour among residential guardians. Unique self-report data on daily surveillance routines of residents were gathered from a national sample of 4824 respondents in the Netherlands to explore the key factors that facilitate and inhibit supervision. It was tentatively estimated that residents carry out supervision roughly a quarter of the time they are at home. Further analyses revealed that individual resident characteristics, such as their perceptions of crime, sense of responsibility for guarding, security training, courageousness and national security values positively predict supervision intensity. Conversely, self-esteem and trust were found to negatively affect supervision. Results suggest that manipulable individual factors such as attitudes are more important at predicting supervision than comparatively static factors such as personality. Implications for criminological theory that explains the concept of supervision as a function of guardianship, and how it can be fostered as a crime control mechanism within residential contexts, will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This measure captures self-report estimates of the time spent monitoring while a resident is home. It is important to acknowledge that a proportion of surveillance may occur passively. Residents may not be aware of the number of times they actually monitor, and monitoring can occur passively while conducting routine activities around their house (Ekblom 2011; Moir 2017; Reynald 2011b).
We also did log and square-root transformations on skewed variables and ran a series of other multiple regression and stepwise regression analyses to see whether dichotomizing variables for the logistic regression unduly influenced results. We found that results did not differ dramatically.
References
Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786867.
Atkins, R., Hart, D., & Donnelly, T. M. (2005). The association of childhood personality type with volunteering during adolescene. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0008.
Atlas, R. (1991). The other side of defensible space. Security Management, 63–66.
Azjen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open Univesity Press.
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83.
Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1992). A place for every crime and every crime in its place: An alternative prespective on crime displacement. In D. J. Evans, N. R. Fyfe, & D. T. Herbert (Eds.), Crime, policing and place: Essays in environmental criminology (pp. 164–195). London: Routledge.
Beavis, C., & Nutter, J. B. (1977). Changing street layouts to reduce residential burglary. Paper presented at the American Society of Crimonology, Atlana, U.S.
Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offences. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 2, pp. 115–148). New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Bennett, T., & Wright, R. T. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Aldershot: Gower.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80001-2.
Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012.
Cemalcilar, Z. (2009). Understanding individual characteristics of adolescents who volunteer. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.009.
Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 824–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00614.x.
Clarke, R. V. (1980). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047153.
Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: An empirical and theoretical study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17(2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242788001700202.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589.
Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00054.x.
Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67(3), 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00062.
Einolf, C. J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1267–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.06.003.
Ekblom, P. (2011). Crime prevention, security and community safety using the 51s framework. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Felson, M. (2006). Crime and nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Felson, M., & Eckert, M. (2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Graziano, W., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583.
Hollis-Peel, M. E., & Welsh, B. (2014). What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action. Security Journal, 27(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.32.
Hollis-Peel, M. E., Reynald, D. M., & Welsh, B. (2012). Guardianship and crime: An international comparative study of guardianship in action. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9366-1.
Huston, T. L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R., & Geis, G. (1981). Bystander intervention into crime: A study based on naturally-occurring episodes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), 14–23 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033858.
Laner, M. R., Benin, M. H., & Ventrone, N. A. (2001). Bystander attitudes toward victims of violence: Who's worth helping? Deviant Behavior, 22(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396201750065793.
MacDonald, J. E., & Gifford, R. (1989). Territorial cues and defensible space theory: The burglar's point of view. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80034-9.
Matsuba, M. K., Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2007). Psychological and social-structural influences on commitment to volunteering. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.001.
Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27(3), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427890027003003.
Moir, E. (2017). Guardianship in the Brisbane suburbs: An exploratory study of crime control by residents in a non-urban context. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Moriarty, L., & Williams, J. (1996). Examining the relationship between routine activities theory and social disorganization: An analysis of property crime victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887429.
Moseley, M. J. (1979). Accessibility: The rural challenge. London: Methuen.
Næss, P. (2006). Accessibility, activity participation and location of activities: Exploring the links between residential location and travel behaviour. Urban Studies, 43(3), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500534677.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.
Nicksa, S. C. (2013). Bystander’s willingness to report theft, physical assault, and sexual assault: The impact of gender, anonymity, and relationship with the offender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505146.
Ohmer, M. L., Warner, B. D., & Beck, E. (2010). Preventing violence in low-income communities: Facilitating residents' ability to intervene in neighborhood problems. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(2), 161–181 http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol37/iss2/8.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispostional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.525.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141.
Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2008.19.
Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810365904.
Reynald, D. M. (2011a). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 110–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810384138.
Reynald, D. M. (2011b). Guarding against crime: Measuring guardianship within routine activity theory. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space theory. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370808098103.
Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2015). The routine activity of guardianship: Comparing self-reports of guardianship intensity patterns with proxy measures. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 17, 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2015.9.
Reynald, D. M., & van Bavel, M. (2013). Retirees in action: Exploring the intensity of guardianship provided by Dutch residents over the age of 65. In S. Ruiter, W. Bernasco, W. Huisman, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Eenvoud en verscheidenheid: Liber amicorum voor Henk Elffers. Amsterdam: NSCR & VU.
Sampson, R., Eck, J. E., & Dunham, J. (2010). Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal, 23(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2009.17.
Tseloni, A., Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., & Pease, K. (2002). Modelling property crime using the British crime survey. What have we learnt? British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.1.109.
Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/44.1.66.
van Wee, B. (2002). Land use and transport: Research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(4), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00041-8.
Weisel, D. L. (2002). Burglary of single-family houses. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(3), 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00058.x.
White, G. F. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829000090471.
Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4), 771–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00094.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Self Esteem Scale Items (Rosenberg & Radbound University Nijmegen, Netherlands items).
1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree
- 1)
I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others
- 2)
I feel that I have a number of good qualities
- 3)
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure (reverse coded)
- 4)
I am able to do things as well as most other people
- 5)
I feel I do not have much to be proud of
- 6)
I take a positive attitude toward myself
- 7)
On the whole, I am satisfied with myself
- 8)
I wish I could have more respect for myself (reverse coded)
- 9)
I certainly feel useless at times
- 10)
At times, I think I am no good at all (reverse coded)
- 11)
I am satisfied with the way I look
- 12)
I feel good about myself
- 13)
I have confidence in my capabilities
Connection to Others Measure (Inclusion of Others in the Self Scale - Aron & Aron).
The rating scale with circles below is used to assess the degree to which people feel connected to other people.
Please indicate to what extent you generally feel connected to other people.
1 Figure 1
2 Figure 2
3 Figure 3
4 Figure 4
5 Figure 5
6 Figure 6
7 Figure 7
Guardianship Attitudes Scale (Guardianship Survey Items - Reynald).
1 – completely disagree to 5 – completely agree.
How would you generally respond to crime?
- (1)
If I see a crime in progress, I would take some action to stop it.
- (2)
If I see a crime in progress, I would call the police.
- (3)
Dealing with crimes is not the responsibility of ordinary citizens. (reverse coded)
- (4)
I am not capable of preventing crime. (reverse coded)
- (5)
In the past, I have seen a crime happening and ignored it. (reverse coded)
- (6)
I will do what I can to protect my neighbors from crime.
- (7)
In the past, I have taken action myself to stop a crime I saw happening.
- (8)
I have been a witness to crime in the past.
- (9)
If I witness a crime I will take action myself to stop it as long as I am sure I will not be hurt.
- (10)
I believe I have a role to play in preventing crime.
- (11)
I have been the victim of crime in the past.
- (12)
Dealing with crime is solely the responsibility of the police. (reverse coded)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reynald, D.M., Moir, E. Who is watching: exploring individual factors that explain supervision patterns among residential guardians. Eur J Crim Policy Res 25, 449–468 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9380-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9380-7