Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law logoLink to Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law
. 2019 Aug 21;26(6):851–867. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2019.1642256

Fear of crime and related factors in relatives of individuals with mental disorders

Gül Ergün a,✉, Aysun Güzel b
PMCID: PMC7033702  PMID: 32128013

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the fear of crime among relatives of individuals with mental disorders. The study was a cross-sectional epidemiological study. The sample consisted of 545 people. A questionnaire to collect data was developed by the researchers using the literature. 11.0% of the women and 19.4% of the men stated that their exposure to crime had decreased. Patients’ relatives felt that the most disturbing behavior of other people towards their relatives was stigmatization (47.3%), while what made patients’ relatives happiest was when other people talked and chatted to the patient (80.3%). The fear of crime in family members of individuals with mental disorders was found to be greater in women. The family members who participated in the study were found to fear their relatives being victims of crime due to stigmatization and social exclusion.

Key words: family, fear of crime, health professional, mental patient, nurse, psychiatric disorder, stigmatization

Introduction

Fear of crime is the fear of being a victim of crime, based on a perceived threat of harm to oneself or one’s property, which results in excessive protection-seeking and avoidance behavior (Öztoprak et al., 2012). Studies regarding the fear of crime were carried out for the first time in the 1930s in the United States in order to understand and explain the response of society to criminal behavior. They began to be conducted in the European literature in the 1960s. The sociological dimension and psychological consequences of the fear of crime as it is affected by the development of technology have begun to be addressed (May, Rader, & Goodrum, 2010).

Fear of crime is closely related to crime itself, but crime is an independent phenomenon. Studies on the fear of crime in the literature suggest that the increasing fear of crime that occurs in parallel with increasing incidents of crime does not decrease when incidents of crime decrease. Therefore, the fear of crime is an important problem that needs to be considered independently of criminal investigations (Ayhan & Çubukçu, 2007; Dolu, Uludağ, & Ulutaş, 2010). Fear of crime is a serious problem that affects quality of life and can affect the behavior of the individual in his/her daily life, which can lead to withdrawal from society (May et al., 2010). As fear of crime increases, the individual’s sense of trust decreases, and the individual may experience severe psychopathological problems (Gökulu, 2011). Failing to anticipate when and how a crime will happen has always led to people being more on edge. This situation causes people to become both physically and mentally exhausted. There are studies in the literature that have investigated the fear of crime and the relationship it has to individuals’ psychological issues (Stafford, Chandola, & Marmot, 2007) and psychological disorders (Cornaglia, Feldman, & Leigh, 2014; Pearson & Breetzke, 2014). However, no research has been found in the literature that examines the factors relating to fear of crime of relatives of individuals with mental disorders.

Method

Aim and design

This is a cross-sectional epidemiologic study aimed at determining the factors related to fear of crime and other issues in relatives of people with individuals with mental disorders.

Population and sample

The universe of the research was formed of the family members of patients who applied to Burdur State Hospital Psychiatry polyclinic from 21 March to 9 May 2017. The sample of the study consisted of first- and second-degree relatives who agreed to participate in the survey of psychiatric patients who were attending the outpatient clinic for treatment. The sample size was calculated using the formula known as ‘the number of universes’ (Kılıç, 2012). In order to be able to calculate the sample size, the records were examined, and it was learned that the average number of patients coming to the psychiatric clinic on weekdays was 180, and the average number of patients coming on weekends (Saturday morning) was 90. By using the number of daily patients, 6480 (weekdays) + 630 (weekends/Saturdays) = the relatives of 7110 patients were found to have attended between the dates on which the research was conducted (36 on weekdays and 7 on weekdays). This number was accepted as the universe and the sample size was found to be 467. Because the 467 people needed to ensure the size of the sample could not be fully divided into the number of days (43 days) between the dates of the research (467/43 = 10.8), 12 people were selected on weekdays (36 × 12 = 432) and 5 people on the weekends/Saturday (7 × 5 = 35) in order to reach a total of 467 people who were related to the patients. A systematic sampling method was used to reach the appropriate number of samples, and a relative of one out of every 15 patients who came to the polyclinic and received outpatient treatment during the week between 09:00 and 17:00 hours was included in the study. (The patient was attending the polyclinic, and they were accompanied by a relative. Their relative accompanied them to their appointment.) A relative of the first patient was included in the study, followed by a relative of the 15th, 30th, 45th and so on, up to the 180th patients’ relative. On Saturdays, the polyclinic was open between 09:00 and 13:00. On those days, the researchers went to the polyclinic to collect data, and a questionnaire was given to one person out of every 18 people attending. A relative of the first patient was included in the study, followed by the 18th, 36th, 54th and so on, up to the 90th patients’ relatives. The survey was completed with the relatives of 545 patients because of various changes and an increase in the number of patients and their relatives who were attending the polyclinic, due to an increase in the number of doctors working there.

Inclusion criteria

Participants had to be first- or second-degree relatives of a person with a psychiatric diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth Edition (DSM–IV) inclusion criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), had to agree to participate in the research, be between 18 and 65 years old, not be presently working or having previously worked in a psychiatric clinic and not to have had a psychiatric disorder themselves.

Measurements

In the collection of the research data, an information form consisting of 38 questions about the patient’s disease and the individual and familial characteristics and fear of crime of the first- and second-degree family members of the patients was used. The questions in the form were formulated by the researchers after they had studied the literature. The form was intended to determine the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, fear of crime and related factors.

Ethical considerations

The study received ethical approval from the Board of the Ethics Committee for Non-Interventional Clinical Investigations at Mehmet Akif Ersoy University in the decision GO 2017/54 dated 8 February 2017. The study received institutional approval from the Chief Physician for the Burdur State Hospital Pre-admission and the Burdur Public Hospitals Association in the decision 49810142-806.02.02 dated 20 March 2017.

Statistical analysis

The study was a cross-sectional epidemiological study. The data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, average ± standard deviation and chi-square in the SPSS 18.0 program, and values of p < .05 were considered significant.

Results

Tables 1–5 show the data for the participants in our study who were family members of individuals with psychiatric illnesses.

Table 1.

Distribution of patients’ family members participating in the study according to various sociodemographic characteristics.

Characteristics of patients’ relatives n %
Gender    
 Female 365 67.0
 Male 180 33.0
Age    
 13–23 years 127 23.3
 24–34 years 102 18.7
 35–45 years 126 23.1
 46–56 years 105 19.3
 57–67 years 72 13.2
 68 years and over 13 2.4
Marital status    
 Single 186 34.1
 Married 351 64.4
 Widowed 8 1.5
Educational status    
 Illiterate 8 1.5
 Literate 20 3.7
 Primary school graduate 215 39.4
 Secondary school graduate 35 6.4
 High school graduate 142 26.1
 University and higher 125 22.9
Working status    
 Unemployed 394 72.3
 Employed 151 27.7
 Computing 6 4.0
 Call center assistant/advisor 13 8.6
 Farmer 26 17.2
 Security 7 4.7
 Nurse 10 6.6
 Worker (construction, cleaning, etc.) 20 13.2
 Public servant 17 11.2
 Accountant 7 4.7
 Teacher 14 9.4
 Driver 10 6.6
 Technician 13 8.6
 Medical representative 8 5.2
Monthly income (perceived)    
 Very bad 20 3.7
 Bad 41 7.5
 Middle 354 65.0
 Good 109 20.0
 Very good 21 3.9
Revenue statusa    
 1300 ₺ and below 111 20.4
 1301–3000 ₺ 362 66.4
 3001–5000 ₺ 55 10.1
 5001–7000 ₺ 4 0.7
 7001 ₺ and above 13 2.4
Number of siblings    
 1 sibling (single child) 12 2.2
 2 siblings 174 31.9
 3 siblings 172 31.6
 4 or more siblings 187 34.3
Place of residence    
 City center 293 53.8
 Suburbs 76 13.9
 Village 176 32.3
Total 545 100.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Burdur/Center, May 2017.

a

In January 2016 the minimum wage was determined as 1300₺ (Güney, Hacıhasanoğlu, & Tümen, 2016).

Table 2.

Distribution of family members participating in the study according to various characteristics.

Characteristics of patients’ relatives n %
Mother’s educational status
 Illiterate 85 15.6
 Literate 39 7.2
 Primary school graduate 348 63.9
 Secondary school graduate 38 7.0
 High school graduate 35 6.4
Father’s educational status
 Illiterate 33 6.1
 Literate 48 8.8
 Primary school graduate 342 62.8
 Secondary school graduate 56 10.3
 High school graduate 57 10.5
 University and higher 9 1.7
Features of the house where he/she lives with his/her family (1)
 Our home is secluded 61 11.7
 Our home is in a crowded area 407 74.7
 Neither secluded nor crowded 77 14.1
Features of the house where he/she lives with his/her family (2)
 Our home is a detached house 339 62.2
 Our home is in an apartment block 206 37.8
Total number of family members
 1 5 0.9
 2 84 15.4
 3 150 27.5
 4 172 31.6
 5 84 15.4
 6 31 5.7
 7 or more 19 3.5
Frequency of meeting with friends
 Very seldom 59 10.8
 Sometimes 88 16.1
 Occasionally 159 29.2
 Usually 126 23.1
 Very often 113 20.7
The place where he/she feels most secure
 The place I live with my parents 525 96.3
 Mosque 7 1.3
 My place of work 5 0.9
 Youth association 4 0.7
 Police station 4 0.7
Is there immigration to the region where he/she lives with his/her family?
 No 341 62.6
 I don’t know 46 8.4
 Yes 158 29.0
Are people who live in an area subject to immigration uncomfortable with this situation?
 No 97 61.4
 Yes 61 38.6
Why are the people who live in an area subject to immigration uncomfortable with this situation?a
 Law and order and the peace are disturbed 44 72.1
 There is less security 39 63.9
 The crime rate is increasing 40 65.5
 I’m having language problems; I don’t know the language they speak 22 36.0
 House prices are increasing 37 60.6
 The immigrants work for low wages so the locals are unemployed 40 65.5
Total 545 100.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Burdur/Center, May 2017.

a

Multiple options are marked.

Table 3.

Distribution of family members participating in the study according to various characteristics.

Characteristics of patients’ relatives n %
The family member himself/herself has been the victim of a crime.a
 I have not been the victim of a crime. 488 89.6
 I have been the victim of a crime. 57 10.4
 Someone tried to attack me with a knife 5 8.7
 Someone tried to kill me 10 17.5
 I was threatened 13 22.8
 I was kidnapped 3 5.2
 My money/purse/wallet was stolen 13 22.8
 I was assaulted 16 28.0
 I was raped/abused 5 8.7
 Burglars broke into my house 14 24.5
 I was attacked by a mob 5 8.7
Another relative of the patient has been the victim of a crime (by a relative, friend, neighbor etc.)a
 None of my relatives has been exposed to crime. 428 78.5
 One of my relatives has been exposed to crime. 117 21.5
 Someone tried to attack one of my relatives with a knife 12 10.2
 Someone tried to kill one of my relatives 9 7.6
 One of my relatives was threatened 18 15.3
 One of my relatives was kidnapped 9 7.6
 One of my relative’s money/purse/wallet was stolen 27 23.0
 One of my relatives was assaulted 34 29.0
 One of my relatives was raped/abused 14 11.9
 Burglars broke into one of my relative’s homes 51 43.5
 One of my relative’s houses/vehicles was damaged 4 3.4
 One of my relatives was exposed to terrorism/ suffered material or psychological damage due to terrorism 4 3.4
The family member himself or herself has previously committed a crime
 No 530 97.3
 I don’t know 4 0.7
 Yes 11 2.0
 Traffic accident 11 100.0
Another relative of the patient has previously committed a crime
 No 509 93.4
 I don’t know 14 4.0
 Yes 22 2.6
 Murder 6 27.2
 Theft 6 27.2
 Stabbing with knife 5 22.7
 Traffic accident 5 22.7
Family members’ thoughts about their exposure to crime in the last five years
 Exposure to crime has increased 258 47.4
 Exposure to crime is the same 33 6.0
 Exposure to crime has decreased 75 13.8
 No answer 179 32.8
Total 545 100.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Burdur/Center, May 2017.

a

Multiple options were marked.

Table 4.

Distribution of family members participating in the study according to various characteristics.

Characteristics of family members n %
Degree of proximity to the patient    
 Daughter/son 114 20.9
 Mother/father 122 22.4
 Partner 92 16.9
 Patient’s second-degree relativea 217 39.8
Who is patient living with?    
 With me 300 55.0
 Other 245 45.0
Medical diagnosis of the patient    
 Anxiety disorder 297 54.5
 Bipolar disorder 190 34.9
 Schizophrenia 58 10.6
Patient has disturbing behaviorsb    
 Yes 545 100.0
 Is insulting 80 14.6
 Is excessively angry 249 45.6
 Cries excessively 226 41.4
 Hits me 36 6.6
 Hits others 49 8.9
 Speaks unnecessarily and embarrasses me 89 16.3
 Does not take his/her pills 104 19.0
 Harasses others 21 3.8
 Scares others 62 11.3
 Is always upset 22 4.03
 Is introverted/asocial 15 2.7
 Has problems sleeping 15 2.7
Family members are disturbed by other people’s behaviorsb    
 No 228 41.8
 Yes 317 58.2
 Stigmatizing/excluding the patient 150 47.3
 Pitying the patient 125 39.4
 Not wanting to talk to the patient 123 38.8
 Are verbally violent towards the patient 108 34.0
 Are physically violent towards the patient 45 14.1
 Are verbally violent towards the patient’s relative 42 13.2
 Are physically violent towards the patient’s relative 24 7.5
Family members are very happy about other people’s behaviorsb    
 No 15 2.8
 Yes 530 97.2
 Talking and chatting to my relative 426 80.3
 Making it easier for my relative in his/her job 288 54.3
 Giving financial assistance to my relative 69 13.0
 Helping my patient socially 5 0.9
The patient’s exposure to crimeb    
 My relative has not the victim of crime 450 82.6
 My relative has been the victim of crime 95 17.4
 Someone tried to attack him/her with a knife. 34 35.7
 Someone tried to kill him/her. 15 15.7
 He/she was threatened. 24 25.2
 He/she was kidnapped. 14 14.7
 Her/his money/purse/wallet was stolen. 24 25.2
 He or she was assaulted. 21 22.1
 She/he was raped/abused. 10 10.5
 Burglars broke into his/her house. 9 9.4
 His/her house/vehicle was damaged. 14 14.7
 Traffic accident. 3 3.1
 Death of a first-degree relative 3 3.1
 Stigmatization/exclusion 21 22.1
Total 545 100.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Burdur/Center, May 2017.

aThis includes relatives such as grandfathers, grandmothers, grandchildren and siblings.

bMultiple options were marked.

Of the family members participating in the study, 67% were female, 23.3% were in the age range 13–23 years, 64.4% were married, 39.4% were primary school graduates, and 72.3% were unemployed. A total of 65% of the participants had a monthly income at a medium level, 66.4% of them had a monthly income of 1301–3000₺, 34.3% had four or more siblings, and 53.8% lived in the provincial center.

Among the family members participating in the study, 63.9% of the patients’ mothers had graduated from primary school, 62.8% of the fathers had graduated from primary school, 74.7% of their homes were in built-up/densely populated areas, 62.2% of their homes were detached, 31.6% of households had a total of four or more people, 29.2% of the participants met with their friends occasionally, and 96.3% felt most secure in the place where their family lived. It was determined that the region where 29% of the participants lived had experienced a high degree of immigration, and 38.6% of those who lived in areas experiencing migration were disturbed by this situation. A total of 72.1% of those who felt uncomfortable about migration stated that the peace in their areas and law and order had been disturbed (Table 2).

When the ways in which the 545 family members who participated in the study learned about crime were investigated, it was found that 446 people (81.8%) used the television, 204 (37.4%) used the internet, 153 (28.0%) used social interaction/friends, 66 (12.1%) used newspapers, 21 (3.8%) used the radio, and 15 (2.7%) used the phone (Multiple options were marked.)

When the 545 family members who participated in the study were asked what news that they watched on TV they found most frightening, 463 people (84.9%) stated that this was news of child rape/molestation/abuse; 375 (68.8%) terror; 351 (64.4%) murder; 239 (43.8%) war; 191 (35.0%) accidents; and 170 (31.1%) theft/extortion. (Multiple options were marked.)

When the 545 family members who participated in the survey were asked what types of programs were most frequently watched it was determined that 327 people (60.0%) watched the news, 325 (59.6%) films/drama series, 172 (31.5%) documentaries, 96 (17.6%) magazine programs, 86 (15.7%) comedy programs, 77 (14.1%) politics/political discussion programs, 8 (1.4%) sport and 5 (0.9%) music programs. (Multiple options were marked.)

A total of 10.4% of the family members who participated in the study had been exposed to crime, and 28.0% of the persons exposed to crime had been assaulted. Acquaintances (relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.) of 21.5% of the patients’ family members has been exposed to crime, and 43.5% of those who had committed suicide had also been burgled. A total of 2.0% of the patients’ relatives and 2.6% of other people closely related to the patient had committed a crime (Table 3).

Of the 545 family members who participated in the study, 47.4% stated that their exposure to crime had increased today compared to 5 years ago (Table 3).

When the 545 family members participating in the study were given statements related to their own safety and were asked to indicate which statements were close to how they felt, 262 people (48.0%) indicated that they felt close to the statement: ‘I’m afraid of my relatives getting hurt’; 116 (21.2%) chose ‘I’m afraid to go out alone at night’; 106 (19.4%): ‘I don’t walk down streets if no one else is there’; 103 (18.8%): ‘I’m afraid of getting hurt’; 89 (16.3%): ‘When I go out in the evening and people come from the opposite direction, I walk quickly and look straight ahead’; 79 (14.4%): ‘I need extra security measures to protect myself (gun, pepper spray, etc.)’; 70 (12.8%): ‘I only go out with my friends if I have to go out at night’; 60 (11.0%): ‘I find street lighting insufficient’; 49 (8.9%): ‘I’ve got an iron window railing’ [for security]; 45 (8.2%): ‘I don’t ride on the bus alone’; 39 (7.1%): ‘I prefer to walk on crowded streets’; 29 (5.3%): ‘If I have to go out in the evening alone I pretend to be talking on the phone until I get home’; 28 (5.1%): ‘The service provided by the police does not make me feel secure’; 26 (4.7%): ‘I can’t stay alone in my home (I feel vulnerable/unprotected)’; 21 (3.8%): ‘I have a security camera at home; and 13 (2.3%): ‘I don’t like walking in crowded streets’. (Multiple options were marked.)

The 545 family members who participated in the survey were given key words about exposure to crime and responded as follows when asked to indicate which phrases frightened them: 385 people (70.6%) said that terrorism (violence, explosions or gunshot injuries) frightened them; 327 (60.0%) pointed to other forms of terrorism (military coups/the overthrow of the armed forces in a country by another military force); 325 (59.6%) to abuse/rape; 214 (39.2%) to physical violence/assault; 188 (34.4%) to someone trying to kill herself/himself; 166 (30.4%) to someone threatening him/her; 145 (26.6%) to theft/burglary; 142 (26.0%) to extortion; 140 (25.6%) to street theft; 76 (13.9%) to migration; and 7 people (1.2%) indicated mistreatment by those in power. (Multiple options were marked.)

The 545 family members participating in the study were asked to indicate how protected they felt from exposure to crime and to indicate which statements they most trusted. A total of 65 people (11.1%) stated that they did not feel any confidence that they were being protected. The remaining 480 participants responded as follows: 232 people (48.3%) said they felt protected by the speed of the police response to any incident; 227 (47.2%) lived near the police headquarters; 222 (46.2%) trusted the current government to take adequate security measures; 218 (45.4%) felt that the police using motor vehicles and carrying out foot patrols were very common, and 217 people (45.2%) noted the frequent use of checkpoints by the security forces. (Multiple options were marked.)

A total of 39.8% of the family members participating in the study were second-degree relatives (grandfather, grandmother, grandchild and siblings) of the patient. A total of 54.5% of the patients had an anxiety disorder, and 17.4% had been victims of crime. The behavior of the patients that disturbed their relatives the most was the patient’s anger (45.6%). The patients’ relatives felt that the most disturbing behaviors of other people towards their relatives was stigmatization (47.3%), while what made patients’ relatives happiest was when other people talked and chatted to the patient (80.3%; Table 4).

The 545 family members participating in the study were given statements about any exposure to crime experienced by their relatives and were asked which situation would frighten the patients if they encountered them. They answered as follows: 389 people (71.3%): ‘If someone tried to kill my relative’; 354 (64.9%): ‘If someone tried to attack my relative with a knife’; 354 (64.9%): ‘If someone raped/abused my relative’; 341 (62.5%): ‘If my relative were threatened’; 323 (59.2%): ‘If my relative were kidnapped’; 308 (56.5%): ‘If my relative were exposed to terrorism/suffered material or moral damage due to terrorism’; 288 (52.8%): ‘If my relative were assaulted’; 264 (48.4%): ‘If my relative’s money, purse or wallet were stolen’; 254 (46.6%): ‘If burglars broke into my relative’s house’; and 200 people (36.6%): ‘If my relative’s house/vehicle were damaged’.

A statistically significant relationship was found between the genders of the family members who participated in the study and their thoughts about being exposed to crime in the last 5 years (p = .01; Table 5). A total of 54.8% of the women and 32.2% of the men stated that their exposure to crime had increased, and 11.0% of the women and 19.4% of the men stated that their exposure to crime had decreased. Gender was associated with the thought of being exposed to crime; the belief that their exposure to crime had increased was greater in women.

Table 5.

Distribution and significance (p) of gender and income of family members participating in the study and exposure to crime in the last five years.

Characteristics (n = 770) Increased
 Is the same
 Decreased
 No answer
 Total
  
N % N % N % N % N % p
Gender
 Female 200 54.8 14 3.8 40 11.0 111 30.4 365 100.0  
 Male 58 32.2 19 10.6 35 19.4 68 37.8 180 100.0 .01a
Income
 1300 ₺ and below 45 40.5 2 1.8 36 32.4 28 25.2 11 100.0  
 1301–3000 ₺ 178 49.2 27 7.5 35 9.7 122 33.7 362 100.0 <.01a
 3001–5000 ₺ 22 40.0 4 7.3 4 7.3 25 45.5 55 100.0  
 5001–7000 ₺ 2 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 4 100.0  
 7001 ₺ and above 11 84.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 15.4 13 100.0  
Open in a new tab

Note. Burdur/Center, May 2017.

a

Chi-square test.

b

The area where migration 158 people were included in the analysis.

A statistically significant relationship was found between the incomes of the family members who participated in the study and their thoughts about being exposed to crime in the last 5 years (p < .01; Table 5). A total of 84.6% of those who had an income of 7001₺ and over, and 40.5% of those who had an income of 1300₺ and below, thought that their exposure to crime had increased. The belief that exposure to crime had increased was greater among those with a high income.

Discussion

There have not yet been any studies in the literature examining the fear of crime in individuals with mental illness. Thus, the discussion is conducted using research findings about the fear of crime amongst the general public and students. Nearly all the family members who participated in the study and had relatives with a mental illness responded that the homes where they lived with their families were where they felt most secure (Table 2). While peaceful and happy individuals in the family often referred to the place where they live as the most secure environment, fear of crime was high in family members who had experienced domestic violence (Çardak, 2012). Nearly all of the family members who participated in the study stated that their homes were where they felt most secure, which may lead to the belief that the rate of domestic violence is low. The majority of participants lived in detached houses and in densely populated areas. Studies of crime indicate that an increasing population and increased urbanization will increase crime rates (Gökulu, 2010). Nearly one third of the participants indicated that the area in which they lived with their families had experienced immigration. Nearly half of the people who lived in these regions were found to be uncomfortable with this situation. The vast majority of those who were uncomfortable with immigration stated that the capacity to live peacefully and law and order had been disturbed (Table 2). The increasing population and cultural diversity associated with migration leads to increased crime rates. An increasingly heterogeneous population, unemployment and increased social mobility lead to an increase in the number and variety of crimes (Ömeroğlu, 2012). In Turkey, there have been and will be Syrian refugees immigrating due to the civil war in their country. Due to security concerns arising from terrorist incidents in Turkey, 386,360 citizens migrated between 1990 and 2000 to the south and western regions in particular (Kılıç 2016). Both migrants and the people in the region to which they have migrated can experience sociocultural and economic trauma. This leads to security-related problems and to people being disturbed by migrants.

The vast majority of participants stated that they learned about crimes through television. Öztürk (2015) found that the media influenced the fear of crime in a study conducted with female students at a university. In the students who closely followed the news about crime, he determined that there was a great fear of becoming victims of crime. The most common crimes feared are child molestation and abuse, and terrorism. According to Derdiman (2010), crime rates in Burdur are increasing. Most crimes committed are crimes against the person, such as threats, assaults and murder. While five people were taken into custody due to terror, 430 people were taken into custody at Burdur police headquarters due to public order offences (assault, extortion, theft, etc.) in 2009 (Tüzüntürk, 2009). In this respect, in the province of Burdur there is comparatively little crime related to rape and terrorism. The participants’ fear of these crimes can be explained as an effect of the media. There are, however, also different results in the literature contrary to the findings of this research. For example, in the study conducted by Köseoğlu (2017) in the Northern Cyprus, the media were not found to have any effect on the fear of crime among women.

Patients’ relatives stated that they generally watched news programs and television series. In Turkey, sexual abuse, rape and terror are frequently mentioned in the news and in television programs (Deniz & Özel, 2015; Gökulu, 2013; Öztürk, 2015). Therefore participants are more likely to encounter these kinds of crimes in the media.

One in ten of those involved in the study had been exposed to crime. It was determined that the most common experience among the victims of crime was having been assaulted. One fifth of the participants (first- and second-degree relatives) had been victims of crime perpetrated by any of their relatives. Theft/burglary is the most common crime here. The places where crimes against the person are highest in Turkey are Bartın, Niğde, Burdur, Ardahan and Kastamonu (Yılmaz & Günayergün, 2006). As can be seen, the crime rate in the province of Burdur is greater than the crime rate in the country in general. We can state that the participants’ and their close relatives’ exposure to crime is low when compared to the data from Burdur. Although the rates of exposure to crime among the relatives of patients are low, half of them stated that the number of victims of crime had increased in the previous 5 years. This is one of the paradoxes related to fear of crime and may be due to changes in the attitudes and perceptions of the participants according to what they have learned watching news about crime.

Nearly half of the individuals involved in the study were afraid of harm occurring to any of their relatives. One fifth of the participants stated that they did not want to go into the street at night, and did not walk down the streets when no one else was there. Painter (1996), in one of his studies, found that fear of crime is more common in dark areas where street lighting is insufficient. Ross and Hanley (2017) emphasized that individuals feel vulnerable and insecure on the streets and that it is extremely important to make sure that streets are safe. De Silva, Warusavitharana, and Ratnayake (2017), in their work on fear of crime and security measures on the streets, stressed the importance of evaluating, during the process of urban planning, which areas were felt to be secure and unsecure by people in the vicinity. Kim and Park (2017) stated that improving street lighting reduces the level of fear of crime for people living in that area.

The 545 family members who participated in the study were given key words about exposure to crime and responded as follows when asked to indicate which phrases frightened them: The vast majority said terrorism (violence/bombings or gunshot injuries), military coup, harassment/rape and physical violence/assault (multiple options were marked). The large number of terrorist incidents in Turkey has caused people to have a fear of these kinds of crime. The research findings are thus an expected result. The effects of terrorist acts are increased through the media. The media are also a very easy way to spread social fears and anxieties among the masses of people targeted. The way the media report news of events that are closely related to what is going on in society has a crucial place in how events are perceived and responded to. This is an important issue that needs to be discussed, especially when the photographs and images used in the news are repeatedly presented to the audience over a long period of time. How the news affects the mind of the reader and the viewer also needs to be discussed (Üvez, 2014). The methods that the media use to influence their audiences lead to an increase in the fear of crimes related to terrorism. The way in which the media mirror the views of participants in this study can be cited as the reason for the fear of terrorism in the first place. In a study to determine how the media affected young people’s perceptions of the world (Taylan, 2011), it was determined that young people who watch television more often perceive the world as more ruthless and dangerous and that their fear of crime is greater. The effect of the media on human beings in Turkey is very clear.

Family members stated that they felt themselves to be secure with regard to the speed of the police’s response to incidents, living near to the police’s headquarters, that the current government is taking adequate security measures, that motorized and foot patrols by the police were common and that checkpoints were frequently used by the security forces. Very few (one in 10) of the participants stated that they did not feel secure in any way. Different conclusions have been found in other studies related to this topic in the literature. Citizens who felt that the police responded to the emergency calls made by the citizens as soon as possible felt more secure, but how visible the police were on the streets did not have any influence on their concerns about being victims of crime (Uludağ, Özdemir, & Doğutaş, 2010). Another study conducted by Polat and Gül (2009) in Erzincan stated that citizens would feel more secure if the number of motorized and uniformed police teams on the streets were increased.

Most of the family members participating in the study lived with the patient, and they were first- and second-degree relatives (grandfather, grandmother, grandchildren and siblings) of the patient. Most of the patients had an anxiety disorder, and the number of patients experiencing psychosis was smaller. This may be due to the fact that the psychiatric clinic at Burdur State Hospital is an outpatient clinic and that a large proportion of advanced psychiatric patients are referred to the nearest Educational Research Hospitals, University Hospitals and Regional Hospitals. One fifth of the family members had been exposed to crime. The behavior of the patients that disturbed the family members the most was the patients’ anger. The stigmatizing behavior of other people also disturbed the relatives of the patients. Patients’ relatives were very happy when other people talked and chatted to their relatives (Table 4). These findings point to disturbances caused by the stigmatization and exclusion of the psychiatric patients by the community. People tend to discriminate and stigmatize against people they perceive as different. Stigmatization is often directed towards an individual with a psychiatric disorder (Krupchanka & Thornicroft, 2017). The fear of crime among family members related to the stigmatization of individuals with psychiatric disorders is evidence of how uncomfortable stigmatization is for people. While the findings of this study were generally similar to the findings of other studies in the literature, the fact that relatives fear crimes will be committed against the patients points to the fear of stigmatization and exclusion. Stigmatization is not always promulgated by society in general (Arboleda Flórez, 2017). Sometimes the family members of individuals with psychiatric disorders can stigmatize their own relatives through behaviors such as hiding the diagnosis of the patient or their admission to hospital and their shame at this (Corrigan, 2004; Phelan, Bromet, & Link, 1998). In our research, family members expressed their discomfort at how other people stigmatized their relatives. However, some of them tended to stigmatize their relatives themselves by stating that their relatives hit or harassed others and embarrassed them by saying unnecessary things.

According to the research, the belief that exposure to crime had increased was higher in women (Table 5). Öztürk, Kocacık, and Gönültaş (2016) found similar results in their studies examining the relationship between fear of crime and gender. Women are more fearful of crime than men. This is because they feel physically more vulnerable in terms of defending themselves, and they consider themselves at greater risk of crime (Jackson, 2009). In Öztürk et al.’s (2016) study, sexual assault was the most feared crime. But in our research, fear of crime related to terrorism was in first place. It is easy for people to get information about crime through the mass media (Jackson, 2006). In Turkey, there is news in the media about terrorist acts almost every day. This may be the reason why the participants in the study were most fearful of terrorist incidents. Nana (2003) found that women and the elderly had more fear of crime at night. Fear of crime is more common in the elderly, women and those of a low economic status and a lower educational level. Despite the low probability of encountering crime, the fact that these kinds of crime are more feared has been called the ‘fear of crime paradox’ (Fitzgerald, 2008). In this context, the belief that women are increasingly exposed to suicide in our research may be due to the fear of crime paradox. The fear of crime paradox can be increased by the rapid spread of information through the influence of the media and interpersonal communication (Jackson, 2008). Given that the findings indicate that the participants learned about crime through the media, this supports the existence of the fear of crime paradox.

In the study, it was found that the incidence of exposure to crime was higher among those with higher incomes. In the literature, fear of crime is generally seen as high in individuals at a low socioeconomic level. It is thought that having inadequate economic power in particular leads individuals to live in less secure places and to encounter more crime (Klima & Wijckmans, 2014; EUCPN 2014). Our research findings were thus different from those in the literature. This may be due to the fact that in the province of Burdur there has been a recent increase in the number of crimes committed against people and an increase in property damage. It is stated in the literature that the number of incidents of crime in Burdur is in the upper range in spite of the fact that the province is among the smallest in Turkey (Çakmakçı, 2015; Derdiman, 2010; Hepdeniz, Polat, & Tokdemir, 2015; Yılmaz & Günayergün, 2006).

Conclusion

It was found that although the numbers of crimes involving rape and terrorism in the areas where family members of individuals with mental disorders lived were low, the fear of crime was high for these people. The level of fear of crime was also high in females and in those with a high socioeconomic status. Family members of individuals with mental disorders had a fear of crime related to the stigmatization and exclusion of their patients. Further activities to be carried out in line with these findings could include:

  • The investigation of different properties of the fear of crime in a group of families of individuals with mental illness covering a larger sample group could be carried out.

  • Mental health nurses and other health professionals providing counseling in clinical or polyclinical issues could focus on the fear of crime experienced by individuals with mental illness and their families, including stigmatization and similar issues.

  • It is recommended that educational programs be developed and implemented to strengthen the coping skills of individuals with mental illness and to protect and improve the mental health of family members.

  • Health education, psychoeducation and group therapy and other implementations could be planned and implemented to reduce individuals’ fear of crime.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Gül Ergün has declared no conflicts of interest

Aysun Güzel has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. BMC Med, 17, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arboleda-Flórez J. (2017). What has not been effective in reducing stigma In Gaebel W., Rössler W., & Sartorius N. (Eds.), The stigma of mental illness-end of the story? Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 515–530. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27839-1_28 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayhan İ., & Çubukcu K.M (2007). Suç ve kent ilişkisine ampirik bakış: literatür taraması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(5), 30–55. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/215606 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bevilacqua Guarniero F., Bellinghini R.H., & Gattaz W.F (2017). The schizophrenia stigma and mass media: a search for news published by wide circulation media in Brazil. International Review of Psychiatry, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2017.1285976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Çakmakçı E. (2015). Turizm ve Suç Arasındaki İlişki ve Suçun Önlenmesine Yönelik Teoriler. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, 2(1), 49–59. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/touraj/article/view/5000154387/5000139703 [Google Scholar]
  6. Çardak B. (2012). Kadınların Suç Korkuları Üzerine Nitel Bir Çalışma. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 23–45. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/208177 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cornaglia F., Feldman N.E., & Leigh A (2014). Crime and mental well-being. Journal of Human Resources, 49(1), 110–140. doi: 10.3368/jhr.49.1.110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Corrigan P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. De Silva C.S., Warusavitharana E.J., & Ratnayake R (2017). An examination of the temporal effects of environmental cues on pedestrians’ feelings of safety. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 64, 266–274. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Deniz Ş., & Özel E.K (2015). Tecavüzün Haberleştirilmesinde Etik Sorunlar: ‘5 N 1 K Yetmez, Bir de Vicdan Gerek’ Ethical Issues in the reporting of rape: ‘It is not enough 5 W and 1 H, conscience is also needed’. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(4), 721–759. doi: 10.21547/jss.256750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Derdiman R.C. (2010). Kentleşmenin Suça Etkisi ve Kentlilerin Suçla Mücadelesinin Sosyal ve Hukuki Boyutları. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, 19(3), 49–73. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dolu O., Uludağ Ş., & Doğutaş C (2010). Suç korkusu: nedenleri, sonuçları ve güvenlik politikaları ilişkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Derg, 61(1), 61–66. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fitzgerald R. (2008). Fear of crime and the neighbourhood context in Canadian cities (Vol. 13, pp. 13–48). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Published by authority of the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gökulu G. (2010). Kent güvenliği kentleşme ve suç ilişkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 209–226. Retrieved from http://e-dergi.atauni.edu.tr/atauniiibd/article/viewFile/1025006501/1025006077 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gökulu G. (2011). Perceived risk of victimization and fear of crime: A case study of METU students (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara). [Google Scholar]
  16. Gökulu G. (2013). Representation of sexual violence in Turkish cinema and television series. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 19(2), 66–91. doi: 10.1080/12259276.2013.11666149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gültekin S., & Gültekin R (2011). Toplum destekli polislik: sorun mu çözüm mü? Türk İdare Dergisi, 470, 93–112. [Google Scholar]
  18. Güney İE., Hacıhasanoğlu Y.S., & Tümen S (2016). Asgari ücret artışının tüketici kredilerine etkisi. Ekonomi Dergi Notları, 25, 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/fd988021-1992-4ba1-b941-86033a21a1d6/en1625.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACEfd988021-1992-4ba1-b941-86033a21a1d6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hepdeniz K., Polat S., & Tokdemir E (2015). Bucak İlçesi’nde (Burdur) Meydana Gelen Suçların Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri ile İncelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 1–5. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/makufebed/article/view/5000161254/5000145442 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackson J. (2006). Introducing fear of crime to risk research. Risk Analysis, 26(1), 253–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00715.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackson J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(4), 365–390. doi: 10.1080/10683160802275797 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackson J. (2008). Bridging the social and the psychological in the fear of crime. Fear of crime: Critical voices in an age of anxiety, LSE Research Online, 143–167. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3537/1/Bridging_the_social_and_the_psychological_in_the_fear_of_crime_(LSERO).pdf
  23. Kılıç S. (2012). Örnek Büyüklüğü, Güç Kavramları ve Örnek Büyüklüğü Hesaplaması. Journal of Mood Disorders, 2, 3. doi: 10.5455/jmood.20120921043306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kılıç M.F. (2016). Türkiye’de büyük kentlere göçün suç oranının artmasıyla ilişkisi: Antalya örneği. The Journal of Europe-Middle East Social Science Studies, 2(1), 83–106. doi: 10.21085/jemsos.18302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim D., & Park S (2017). Improving community street lighting using CPTED: A case study of three communities in Korea. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 233–241. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Klima N., & Wijckmans B (2014). European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN): Crime preventi-on activities at the EU, national and local level1. In Coester M. & Marks E. (Eds.), International Perspectives of Crime Prevention 6: Contributions from the 7th Annual International Forum 2013 within the German Congress on Crime Prevention (p. 67). Mönchengladbach, Germany: BoD–Books on Demand. [Google Scholar]
  27. Köseoğlu M. (2017). The fear of crime of women who live in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, PhD, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  28. Krupchanka D., & Thornicroft G (2017). Discrimination and stigma In The stigma of mental illness-end of the story? (pp. 123–139). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. ISO 690. [Google Scholar]
  29. May D.C., Rader N.E., & Goodrum S (2010). A gendered assessment of the ‘‘threat of victimization’’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 159–182. doi: 10.1177/0734016809349166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nana K. (2003). Unintended effects of security measures in residential environments. In Proceedings of EDRA 34 people shaping places shaping people conference (pp. 105–111). Minneapolis, MN: The Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) www.edra.org Minneapolis. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ömeroğlu Ö. (2012). Suç Korkusu, Cezanın Caydırıcılığı ve Küçük Suçlar. Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi C. XVI, Y, 329–370. Retrieved from http://webftp.gazi.edu.tr/hukuk/dergi/16_4_9.pdf [Google Scholar]
  32. Öztoprak Y., Lux K.M., Gürsesli S., İpek Z., Sezgin B.G., Göloğlu C., & Bağ B (2012). Çocukların sokakta oyun oynamalarına izin verilmemesi-ebeveynin suç korkusu ilişkisi, XIII. Öğrenci sempozyumu, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  33. Öztürk M. (2015). Medya ve suç korkusu arasındaki ilişki. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 36, 251–263. doi: 10.9761/JASSS2894 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Öztürk M., Kocacık F., & Gönültaş M.B (2016). An examinationof fear of crime and perception of risk by gender Suç korkusu ve risk algısının toplumsal cinsiyet açısından incelenmesi. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 1488–1502. doi: 10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3691 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Painter K. (1996). The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 35(2-3), 193–201. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(96)00311-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pearson A.L., & Breetzke G.D (2014). The association between the fear of crime, and mental and physical wellbeing in New Zealand. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 281–294. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0489-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Phelan J.C., Bromet E.J., & Link B.G (1998). Psychiatric illness and family stigma. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24(1), 115–126. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Polat A., & Gül S.K (2009). Kentlerde güvensizlik kaygısı: Erzincan alan araştırması. Yalçın V. K. Değişik Yönleriyle Yerelleşme (pp. 163–183). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ross S., & Hanley N (2017). Crime in the streets In Palmer D., de Lint W., & Dalton D. (Eds.), Crime and justice: A guide to criminology (pp. 129–150). Pyrmont, Australia: Thomson Reuters. [Google Scholar]
  40. Stafford M., Chandola T., & Marmot M (2007). Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2076–2081. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.097154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylan H.H. (2011). Televizyon programlarındaki şiddetin yetiştirme etkisi: Konya lise öğrencileri üzerine bir araştırma (Doctoral dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Tez Danışmanı Prof.Dr.Ahmet Kalender, Konya, Turkey). [Google Scholar]
  42. Tüzüntürk S. (2009). Çok boyutlu ölçekleme analizi: suç istatistikleri üzerine bir uygulama. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 71–91. Retrieved from http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423935875.pdf [Google Scholar]
  43. Uludağ Ş., Özdemir S., & Doğutaş C (2010). Vatandaşların suç korku (güvenlik endişesi) seviyesine etki eden faktörler ve alınabilecek önlemler: Malatya örneği. Polis Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  44. Üvez F. (2014). Medya ve Risk Toplumu İlişkisi Bağlamında Terör Haberlerinin Analizi,.Atatütk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gazatecilik Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Tez Danışmanı Prof.Dr. Hüseyin KÖSE, Erzurum, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yılmaz A., & Günayergün S (2006). Türkiye’de Şehir Asayiş Suçları: Dağılış ve Başlıca özellikleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 170, 230–249. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES