The Relation of School and Campus Violence to Students? Perceptions of Safety and Precautionary Behaviors by Kanessa Natria Miller A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 06, 2011 Keywords: campus safety, violence, perceptions, safety behavior intentions, high school violence, college/campus violence Copyright 2011 by Kanessa Natria Miller Approved by Joseph A. Buckhalt, Chair, Wayne T. Smith Distinguished Professor of Special Education, Rehabilitation and Counseling Suhyun Suh, Associate Professor of Special Education, Rehabilitation and Counseling Marie F. Kraska, Mildred Cheshire Fraley Distinguished Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology ii Abstract The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct an examination of the relations between exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary students? perceptions of safety and precautionary behaviors. The study also investigated the gender differences in campus safety perceptions and safety behavior intentions. The sample was comprised of 111 participants from a large southeastern university, consisting of 40 males, 70 females and 1 individual who did not specify gender. The participants completed an electronic survey that assessed their campus safety perceptions, safety behavior intentions and high school/ college violence exposure. Bivariate correlational analyses revealed that there is a small correlation between high school violence exposure and campus safety perceptions, as well as a small correlation between college violence exposure and campus safety perceptions. Significant differences were found between genders for campus safety perceptions and intended safety precautionary behaviors. No relations were found between high school and college campus violence exposure and students? safety behavior intentions. Implications of the findings for secondary and post- secondary administrators, mental health professionals, and campus security are discussed. iii Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Joseph Buckhalt for being my advisor, enduring the long hours needed to complete this research, and assisting with this dissertation; the members of my dissertation research committee; Drs. Marie Kraska and Suhyun Suh for their suggestions and insight throughout this research. This dissertation would not have been possible without Dr. Jung Won Hur serving as the university reader and providing innovative perspectives with challenging recommendations. I truly appreciate all of your contributions and support. My friends, family, and God were essential to my completion of this dissertation. Without these three components, it would not have been possible. I offer my deepest gratitude to my siblings, Alfred Jr. and Tiffany, for their support and confidence in my abilities. I am forever in debt to Willie and Kaiden Doss for their encouragement, understanding, support and love. A special thanks to Khalilah Burton, Sharell Cannady, Coretta Collins, Shawndrea Glaze, Wendy Graham-Johnson, Nikole Lyles, LaWendy Meadows, Angela Rudolph, and Dr. Melanie Russell for their constant support and various acts of kindness. I would also like to express my appreciation to everyone from administrative staff to family and friends who has contributed to the successful completion of this project in every small to gigantic way. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Alfred and Paulette Miller, for their encouragement, faith, understanding, strength, and inspiration through this tumultuous journey. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii List of Table ..................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix Chapter I. Introduction .........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................2 Purpose and Significance .........................................................................................3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................4 Null Hypotheses .......................................................................................................5 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................5 Chapter II. Literature Review ..............................................................................................7 Types of Violence ....................................................................................................8 Consequences of Violence .....................................................................................10 School Violence Prevalence and Statistics ............................................................11 School Administration?s Response to School Violence ........................................13 School Violence Prevention and Intervention .......................................................14 Exposure to School Violence and Victimization ...................................................14 Campus Violence Prevalence and Statistics ..........................................................15 Campus Vulnerability ............................................................................................16 v Post-Secondary Administration?s Response to Campus Violence ....................................17 Campus Violence Prevention and Intervention .....................................................18 Campus Violence Legislation ................................................................................20 The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (The Clery Act) .............................................20 Campus Sexual Assault Victims? Bill of Rights ........................................21 Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act ..........................................................21 Predicting Social Behavior ................................................................................................21 Social Psychology ................................................................................................21 Theory of Reasoned Action ..................................................................................23 Risk Perception Theory ........................................................................................23 Health Behavior Theory .......................................................................................25 Health Belief Model .................................................................................25 Safety Belief Model ..................................................................................26 Physical Environment and Experience Influence on Behavior ..........................................29 Chapter III. Method ...........................................................................................................32 Participants .............................................................................................................32 Instrumentation ......................................................................................................33 Instrument Construction.............................................................................33 Pilot Study ..................................................................................................35 Data Collection ......................................................................................................37 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................38 Chapter IV. Results ............................................................................................................41 Reliability Analysis ................................................................................................41 vi Campus Safety Perceptions....................................................................................42 Safety Behavior Intentions .....................................................................................43 Sample Characteristics ...........................................................................................44 Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................46 Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................47 Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................47 Research Question 4 ..............................................................................................51 Null Hypotheses .....................................................................................................52 Chapter V. Discussion .......................................................................................................54 Implications............................................................................................................58 Secondary and Post-secondary Administrators .........................................58 High School/College Mental Health Providers..........................................59 Campus Security ........................................................................................60 Limitations .............................................................................................................60 Future Research .....................................................................................................61 References ..........................................................................................................................63 Appendices .........................................................................................................................75 Appendix A. Campus Safety& Precautionary Behavior Survey (CSPBS) Pilot Study E-mail Invitation Letter ...........................................................76 Appendix B. Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey (CSPBS) E-mail Invitation Letter .........................................................................................78 Appendix C. E-mail Follow-up Letters .................................................................80 Appendix D. Request for Approval .......................................................................83 Appendix E. Campus Safety and Precautionary Behaviors Survey (Pilot Study) ...............................................................................................86 vii Appendix F. Campus Safety and Precautionary Behaviors Survey .....................102 viii List of Tables Table 1. Pilot Study Reliability of Scales/ Subscales Comparison ....................................36 Table 2. Reliability of Scales/ Subscales Comparison.......................................................44 Table 3. Demographic Description ....................................................................................45 Table 4. Correlation Analyses between Violence Scales/Subscales and Campus Safety Perceptions ..............................................................................................................47 Table 5. Campus Safety Perceptions and Safety Behavior Intentions Scales by Gender..49 Table 6. Univariate Comparison of Scales/Subscales by Gender ......................................50 Table 7. Coefficients for Violence Predictors ....................................................................51 Table 8. Coefficients for Predictors ...................................................................................52 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Safety Belief Model ........................................................................................27 Figure 2. Boxplots of Campus Safety Perceptions ........................................................48 Figure 3. Boxplots of Safety Behavior Intentions ..........................................................49 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION School safety has been an important topic in high schools throughout the United States, especially since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 (Crepeau- Hobson, Filaccio, & Gottfried, 2005). Statistics have shown a decline in violent behavior in secondary schools in the last decade, but this is also an overall trend for the national crime rates (Brener, Lowry, Barrios, Simon, & Eaton, 2005). However, school safety is still an area in need of concern and research. School safety and violence prevention in post-secondary institutions are inadequately researched areas, since prior interest in school violence has mostly been investigated in high school settings. However, the media has focused heavily on post- secondary since the massacre at Virginia Polytechnic and State University (Virginia Tech) on April 16, 2007. College campus safety and security have been more of a priority for college administrators than ever before. Thus, there is an increasing need for more information and resources on violence, prevention methods, intervention techniques, and measures to promote safety (Lenski, 1992; Lenski, Meyers, & Hunter, 1996). Legislators have recognized the need for policies governing crime statistics and campus safety programs since the enactment of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) which has been amended several times (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). It is now referred to as the Clery Act and the last amendment was added in 2008 to respond to the Virginia Tech shootings (Security on Campus, Inc, 2008). The Clery Act legislation 2 requires colleges and universities to reveal crime statistics for their campus and community to the public. It is important to analyze how students use this information (Lenski et al., 1996) and assess their overall feelings of safety or fear. The Safety Belief Model predicts the likelihood of individuals performing common safety precautions. Lenski (1992) and Lenski et al. (1996) explain that the Safety Belief Model is a useful tool to predict students? safety behavior intentions because it combines safety beliefs, demographic, and prior life experience variables. Problem Statement Student safety is a major concern at many levels: individual, family, campus, community, state and national. Even though the topic has gained increased attention, research in this area is limited. There is quite more existing literature about secondary school violence and its prevention/intervention, than post-secondary campus violence. The campus violence literature generally focuses on its sources, compliance with legislation, crime statistics, prevention, and intervention (LaVant, 2001; Lenski, 1992; Lenski et al., 1996). There are many questions still to be considered regarding the overall safety of students that are not typically addressed: Do prior violent experiences influence a student?s feelings of safeness or fearfulness? How do students? perceptions, attitudes, motivation and knowledge about college crimes statistics affect their safety behaviors? Is there a difference between student violence victims? and non-victims? safety precautionary behaviors? Are there differences between male and female students? perceptions of being safe? Are there gender differences in safety behaviors and 3 intentions? How are colleges/universities complying with the Clery Act legislation with attention to psycho-social factors? These questions are the foundation for this investigation because they are instrumental in developing and implementing effective violence prevention and intervention plans, crisis management plans, and evidence-based procedures to respond to targeted violent threats (NASP, 2006). There is limited literature that explores students? safety values, safe practices, attitudes and beliefs, and this study will contribute to the existing literature by exploring the influence of psychosocial variables such as perceptions of safety and precautionary behaviors in association with high school/campus safety and violence. Purpose and Significance The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the relation of exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary students? perception of safety and their intended precautionary behaviors. The investigation aims to explore high school violence exposure and college campus violence exposure predict students? safety behavior intentions. The study will also investigate the similarities and differences of students? perception of campus safety and the related precautionary behaviors between genders. While there are numerous violence/crime prevention and intervention resources, it is essential that high school and college administrators choose programs that will benefit the entire school or campus and promote safety, while interfering minimally with normal daily activities. The relationship between violent experiences and perceptions of safety may prove to be a key to providing school/college administrators, security officers, and 4 mental health professionals with resources to develop effective methods to reduce school/campus violence, increase safety behavior and intentions, and establish well- grounded safety policies and crisis plans. Assessing the relation of school and college violence on students? perceptions of safety and precautionary behaviors is an important contribution to the field of school psychology and education leadership at the secondary and post-secondary levels. Education is not just limited to secondary education, but also encompasses the preschool and post-secondary levels. Although school psychologists generally serve K-12 students, it is essential to recognize the possibility of expanding our role to the post-secondary level because school psychologists work to assist students in gaining the best education possible. School psychologists would also be tremendous assets to preschool and college administrators because of their expertise in education and psychology. Therefore, school psychologists would be vital in developing and/or evaluating safety and crisis planning teams, crisis intervention plans, violence prevention and intervention programs, needs assessments for campus security and violence prevention, and evidence-based procedures to respond to targeted violent threats (NASP, 2006). School psychologists are even qualified to counsel victims and perpetrators of violence (NASP, 2006). Thus, school psychologists are ideal mental health providers to promote, evaluate and facilitate campus safety programs and behavior risk management. Research Questions 1. To what extent is there a relationship between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety? 5 2. To what extent is there a relationship between exposure to college violence and students? perceptions of campus safety? 3. To what extent is there a gender difference in students? perceptions of campus safety and intended safety-related precautionary behavior? 4. To what extent does the exposure to school and college campus violence predict students? intended safety-related precautionary behavior? Null Hypotheses 1. There is no relationship between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. 2. There is no relationship between exposure to college violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. 3. There is no gender difference in students? perceptions of campus safety and intended safety-related precautionary behavior. 4. There is no relationship between prediction of students? intended safety-related precautionary behaviors from exposure to school and campus violence. Definitions of Terms 1. School violence- Physically and verbally violent acts that take place in a K-12 school setting. 2. Campus violence- Physically and verbally violent acts that take place in a college or university setting. 3. Burglary- The criminal act of breaking into a building or private space with the intent to steal. 4. Robbery-The criminal act of removing property from another person by physical 6 or verbal violence. 5. Behavior intention- ?An expressed indication of the probability a person will perform a specific behavior? (Lenski, 1982, p. 12). 6. Physically violent behavior - Non-verbal use of aggression. This includes hitting with or without objects, homicide, physically fighting with or without weapons, sexual assault, and sexual battery. 7. Verbally violent behavior- Verbal use of aggression. For example, threatening another individual with physical harm or an intense argument. 8. Safety precautionary behaviors- Behaviors that are intended to prevent harm to an individual. 7 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ?Student aggression against peers, school staff, and property is a popular topic in the media and a great concern of the public? (Hyman & Perone, 1998, p.7). One of the most prevalent issues children, adolescents, and young adults must face in today?s society is school/ campus violence. Since the students? rampage of shootings and deaths at Columbine High, as well as various events in the media and at many schools that involve physical and verbal violent behavior, administrators have recognized school violence as a true problem. Now, schools have to address concerns about weapons, bullying, physical fighting, harassment, and sexual assault on school grounds (Brener, Lowry, Barrios, Smith, & Eaton, 2005). Secondary school violence and post-secondary campus violence are topics that have received increased attention just as the subject has in our larger society (Pezza & Bellotti, 1995; LaVant, 2001). The United States has the highest homicide rates and other forms of violence such as domestic violence and internalized violence (e.g. drug dependency) in western civilization (LaVant , 2001). According to Pezza and Bellotti (1995), a significant portion of undergraduate freshman students have experienced unsafe high school environments. The concern for campus violence has grown even more since the shootings at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 that resulted in the death of 33 students (Hauser & O?Connor, 2007) and Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008 that 8 resulted in six deaths and 16 wounded students (Northern Illinois University, 2008). Violence is a very difficult phenomenon to explain (Roark, 1993; Pezza & Bellotti, 1995); it varies by time, community reactions, and individual subjectivity (Roark, 1987). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n. d.) defines violence as the exertion of physical force in an effort to cause injury or abuse. Roark (1987) defines violence as an intentional behavior in which ones actions and/or the outcome is harmful to another person. The World Health Organization defines violence as: The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. (Krug, Dahlberg, Mervy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002, p. 5) According to Pezza (1995), violent acts may be categorized as physical, verbal, or exclusively psychological. Battery and rape are examples of physical assault; verbal violence includes teasing and gender, racial, sexual orientation, or ethnic harassment; an example of psychological harassment is intimidation which is neither physical nor verbal. Types of Violence Flannery and ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (1997) states that elementary and secondary school violence must be considered according to grade levels on a continuum of behavior. Elementary school students usually engage in violent or aggressive behavior such as kicking, biting, spitting, and name calling. Bullying, extortion, and physical fighting are forms violence more common among older children. High school students generally engage in battery or fighting, sexual assault or 9 harassment, carrying a weapon, verbal threats, gang activity and homicide. School crime involves theft, property offense and vandalism. College students experience a wide variety of violence that includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, hazing, celebratory violence, dating violence, racial/ethnic and gender-based violence, and homicide (Carr, 2005; Waits & Lundberg- Love, 2008). According to Carr (2005), sexual assault refers to the acts of rape or attempted rape, while sexual harassment involves inappropriate sexual advances or conduct that is related to employment or student performance (e.g. unwarranted sex- related comments/graphics or unwelcome touching). The definition of stalking is ?the willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing of another person that threatens his or her safety? (Amar, 2006, p.108). ?Hazing? refers to any activity expected of someone joining a group (or to maintain full status in a group) that humiliates, degrades or risks emotional and/or physical harm regardless of the person's willingness to participate (StopHazing.org.n.d.,1). Racial/ethnic and gender based violence is a bias crime that the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act defined as an offense that is motivated by hatred against a victim based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality or disability (As cited in Carr, 2005).Celebratory violence involves riots that occur after sporting events, at parties and other school events (Coakley & Donnelly, 2004).Campus dating violence is the exertion of physical, sexual or psychological harm toward a current of former dating partner. Homicide refers to the non-negligent murdering of a human being (Carr, 2005). 10 Consequences of Violence School violence has a serious effect on the aggressor as well as the victim and witnesses (Sharp, 2003). Perpetrators of school violence are at-risk of developing a maladaptive social life at school that reduces one?s ability to forge a sense of belonging (Baker, 1998). The aggressor will also face disciplinary actions when caught that may negatively affect his or her quality of education and future advancement in school (Sharp, 2003). Witnesses and victims of school violence are also negatively affected by violent experiences. Consistent exposure to violence could possibly harm children's cognitive and intellectual ability, physiological functioning, and their ability to create close attachments (Fiester, Nathanson, Visser, & Martin, 1996). According to the National School Boards Association (NSBA) (as cited in Sharp, 2003), children may also experience difficulty in academic functioning due to increased fear for their personal safety. Additional results noted by the NSBA included increased absenteeism and weapon carrying for protection. The impact of campus violence and associated sequelae on a victim are often long-lived and cause the degradation of an individual?s well-being (Waits & Lundberg- Love, 2008). Campus violence yields direct and indirect consequences that impact students, staff, and faculty in several ways (Carr, 2005). Victimization can negatively affect psychological, physical, academic, social and behavior outcomes (Waits & Lundberg-Love, 2008). As a result of violent victimization, students may leave school temporarily to recover or permanently. Victims that remain on campus may have difficulty concentrating, studying, and attending classes due to fear of being in proximity 11 of the violence perpetrator. Therefore, college life may become extremely stressful and the victim may develop severe psychological symptoms (Carr, 2005). Victims of sexual assaults report significantly higher rates of physical and mental health problems than non-victims such as chronic pain disorders (e.g. chronic pelvic pain), gastrointestinal disorders (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome), somatic complaints (e.g. vomiting and seizures), rape trauma syndrome, fear, anxiety, depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), sexual dysfunction, eating disorders, social adjustment, lowered self-esteem, and suicidal ideation (Waits & Lundberg-Love, 2008; Paludi & DeFour, 1998). Victims of sexual harassment violence may experience elevated levels of anxiety, elicit avoidant behavior (e. g. absenteeism and withdrawal), increased emotionality (e.g. insecurity), psychological symptoms (e.g. depression), negative social and interpersonal reactions and PTSD (Waits & Lundberg-Love, 2008). Stalking violence victims can experience many behavior changes to avoid contact with perpetrators, which results in a disruption of his/her daily routine, general distress, and can lead to PTSD, clinical depression, and a decline of physical health. Dating violence or intimate partner violence at the college level may cause victims to experience emotional distress, depression, PSTD, physical injury, chronic pain, and gynecological disorders. Campus- wide response to homicide may include fatigue, depression, fear, anxiety, somatic symptoms, psychological symptoms, reduced concentration, and decreased academic performance (Waits & Lundberg-Love, 2008). School Violence Prevalence and Statistics Approximately one-fourth of deaths among persons 10-24 years of age are classified as homicides and suicides, resulting in being the third and fourth leading causes 12 of death in the age group, respectively (Arias, Anderson, Kung, Murphy, Kochanek, 2003; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008). The overall United States crime rate has been greatly influenced by school and youth violence in the past several years (Eisenbraun, 2007). In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that there were 1,171,365 arrests of persons 18 and under. The FBI also reported that there were 53,819 arrests of adolescents 18 and under in the United States for violent crimes (FBI, 2008). Between 1999 and 2008, there was a decrease of 15.7 percent for total arrest of persons 18 and under and a decrease of 8.6 for violent crimes committed by this population (FBI, 2008). There has been a decline in the youth violence and homicide from 1993-2003, but the statistics are still noteworthy. In 2003, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that according to the respondents of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) one in three students were involved in a physical fight and one in 16 have carried a weapon to school (Brener et al. 2005). According to the CDC, these statistics are representative of the decline in the national youth homicide rate along with the decline of carrying weapons and physical fighting (Brener et al. 2005). However, these numbers are still alarming, and the stability in the prevalence of injuries being sustained in a physical fight has remained the same (Brener et al. 2005). The CDC?s (2008) Youth Surveillance Survey-2007 data collection results indicated that 5.9% of students carried a weapon to school at least one day during the 30 day period prior to administering the survey. Nationwide, 7.8% of students had been threatened or injured with a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on school property one or more times during the 12 months prior to the survey administration. During the 12 13 months before the survey administration, 12.4% of students had engaged in a physical fight on school property one or more times. On school property, 27.1% of students nationwide had their property (e.g., car, clothing, or books) stolen or intentionally damaged on school property one or more times during the 12 months prior to administering the survey. A number of students (5.5% nationwide) did not attend school on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the CDC?s survey administration because they did not feel safe at school or traveling to and from school. According to the CDC (2000), 177 homicides were committed on school property between June 1994 and June 1999 and 84% involved a gun. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2003), 24 homicides occurred at school during the 1999-2000 school year. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that almost one in 10 high school students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon at school during the past year (Brener et al., 2005). The CDC also indicated that there was a decrease in the rate of school-associated homicides from July 1992-June 2006, but stabilization occurred from July 1999- June 2006 after 116 students were killed in 109 school associated homicide events. CDC data noted that homicide is responsible for 15% of deaths among students ages 5-18, which is the second leading cause of death in this age group (CDC, 2008). School Administration?s Response to School Violence The consequences of school violence not only affect the individuals involved, but also the entire student body, administrators and staff, parents, and community. According to the severity of the violent acts like the possession and use of firearms, these entities may suffer severe psychological and physical scars from the incident. The most 14 obvious result of violence for the individuals involved is the disciplinary action taken for the violent act. Schools have chosen to address this issue in various ways: in and out of school suspensions, placement in alternative school programs, and expulsion for severe cases. School administrators have also elected to respond to school violence by implementing school uniforms, zero tolerance policies, school resource officers, and violence prevention plans (NCES, 1998). School Violence Prevention and Intervention Now that school administrators acknowledge that there is a problem, many schools have developed plans for violence prevention. Prevention programs have been effective in aiding school age children to obtain the necessary knowledge, skills, and support needed to avoid violence (Brener et al., 2005). According to Crepeau-Hobson, Filaccio, and Gottfried (2005), Colorado school systems improved efforts to prevent school violence after the Columbine High shootings and deaths in April 1999. Prior to the Columbine shooting, many schools only offered individual counseling, identification procedures and at-risk interventions. After April 1999, almost every school prepared a crisis plan, group counseling, crisis team, and bullying programs. The larger schools also increased the number of school security guards or police officers, schools began locking doors and requiring visitors to check-in. Other preventative measures were initiatives such as affective education programs, family therapy, daily check-ins with at-risk students and anger management programs. Exposure to School Violence and Victimization Many young adults have been exposed to or victimized by violence in a variety of settings, including school (Flannery & Quinn-Leering, 2009). Opportunities for exposure 15 to violence outside of the home increases as children grow older. Three in four elementary and middle school students reported that they have witnessed some kind of violent act at their school, which increased even more by the time a student enters high school (Singer, Miller, Guo, Flannery, Frierson, & Slovak, 1999). Campus Violence Prevalence and Statistics The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annually produces the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) that tallies the quantity of homicides, aggravated assaults, property crime, forcible rapes and robberies reported by the college and universities in the United States (Pezza, 1995). The UCR recorded 2,672 violent crimes according to the information obtained from the 523 colleges/universities of the 4,200 colleges and universities in the United States that reported information in 2007. The violent crimes reported include 2 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, 511 forcible rapes, 882 robberies, and 1,288 aggravated assaults (FBI, 2008). However, this information is limited because all colleges are not represented in the tally; therefore, this is an underestimate of the burden of violence of postsecondary institutions (Pezza, 1995). The U.S. Department of Education (n. d.) collects campus crime statistics under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics Act. The Clery Act requires colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs to disclose information about campus crime and security policies. The data include the alleged crimes reported to campus police or security and local law enforcement. The data are reported in 7 major categories: Homicide that includes murder/non-negligent manslaughter and negligent manslaughter, sexual offenses that include forcible sex offenses (includes rape) and non-forcible sex offenses, robbery, 16 aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson. The 2007 data reported 64 murders/non-negligent manslaughters, 8 negligent murders, 3,490 forcible sex offenses, 58 non-forcible sex offenses, 4,968 robberies, and 5,217 aggravated assaults. Campus Vulnerability ?In our increasingly violent society, college and university campuses are vulnerable to violent acts.? (Schuh, 1998, p. 17) There are physical and psychological campus components that contribute to the degree of campus vulnerability. The physical components that contribute to campus vulnerability are the openness of campus, accessibility to buildings, hours of operation, campus events, access to administrators and faculty, and the location of campus. The psychological factors that affect institutions of higher education are trust and respect, controversy, substance abuse, stress, and the length of time at the post-secondary institution (Schuh, 1998). There are many physical factors that can contribute to campus vulnerability to violence. Most colleges/universities have seminars, sporting events, recruiting events, workshops and etc. that are open to the public; therefore, college campuses are constantly open to many people including faculty/staff, students, prospective students, and the general public. College campuses have limited ability to regulate the perimeter of the campus due to the vast amounts of opportunities to get on college and university campuses without being challenged. Postsecondary institutions are generally accessible 24 hours a day, which greatly increases the campus? potential for violent acts. Potential offenders have unlimited access to faculty/staff, students, and senior leaders like the college/university president because these individuals are usually located on campuses in offices, classrooms, residence hall or other facilities. The campus location is also a 17 possible contributing factor to campus vulnerability to violent acts. Once a college or university is built, it generally does not relocate. The surrounding area can cause problems on campus. For example, a crime suspect can hide on campus or riots in the city can come onto the campus. The psychological components of college/university campus vulnerability are the sense of trust and respect given on campus, controversy, substance abuse, stress and the length of time spent on campus. College students are generally taught to trust and respect all points of view; however, dissension may arise from differing opinions. The social climate of colleges may be disrupted by societal controversy. For example, a catalyst for discord could be a social and/or political topic like civil rights or immigration being discussed in a public forum. Substance abuse is a major concern of institutions of higher education that could contribute to the psychological vulnerability of colleges/universities. Schuh (1998) acknowledges a link between substance abuse and criminal offenses and violent acts that increases a campus? vulnerability. College students are expected to earn passing grades, which increases anxiety and stress; and violence may result from young students experiencing extreme levels of stress for the first time. The relative short length of time that college students spend on campus could possibly contribute to their limited respect for their surroundings, which may contribute to violence in the form of vandalism. Post-Secondary Administration?s Response to Campus Violence Administrators of post-secondary institutions are forced to respond to campus violence because of federal and/or state legislation and public and students? interest. Most colleges and universities have revised policies and student codes of conducts to reflect 18 the requirements of the federal and/or state laws and court decisions about student discipline (Hunnicutt & Kushibab, 1998). Colleges are also creating or increasing risk assessment teams that are composed of faculty, residence housing officials, psychologists, administrators, campus security, and college administrators to review possible disturbed students (Elias, 2008). Administrators have created or improved emergency action plans or crisis intervention plans to detail actions to be taken in case of acts of violence. College administrators are also developing ways to improve crisis communication by sending notifications via e-mail, the web, and a public address system (Herrmann, 2008). Campus Violence Prevention and Intervention Campus violence literature describes many prevention and intervention strategies for college administrators and campus security to implement. Roark (1987) stated that violence prevention must be multifaceted with broad interdisciplinary and interprofessional planning. According to LaVant (2001), the reduction of campus violence must target the entire campus community involving collaboration between campus police, students, administrators, faculty members, staff, residence housing officials, mental health staff, and local police. Pezza and Bellotti (1995) suggested that risk reduction procedures should involve education and training to aid community members in decreasing the likelihood of victimizing others or victimization. Campus violence prevention can be accomplished in a variety of ways, but each institution must determine the best approach for its campus and community depending on the nature of the campus (Deisinger, Cychosz, & Jaeger, 1998). Roark (1987) stated that campus violence should consist of levels of violence prevention, which resembles 19 Response to Intervention models (RTI) with levels of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions. Primary prevention strategies are implemented before the onset of a problem. Secondary interventions involve targeting a problem to minimize the consequences for at-risk individuals. Tertiary prevention consists of remediation and direct services to victims and others associated with violent acts (Roark, 1987). Primary prevention aims to prevent new cases of victimization by addressing the causes of violence while changing actions, attitudes, and values that are associated with the conditions that facilitate or perpetrate violence (Roark, 1987). The assessing of physical campus vulnerability, workshops and training sessions (e.g. social skills and conflict resolution), and legislation are coordinated efforts at the primary level to decrease campus violence (Carr, 2005; LaVant, 2001; Pezza & Bellotti, 1995; Roark, 1987). Secondary prevention efforts address an at-risk population with an already existing problem (Roark, 1987). This level of prevention involves spreading awareness through education. Awareness should be increased through educating students about substance abuse and campus violence (LaVant, 2001; Roark, 1987). College administrators should communicate guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable social behavior by creating and implementing clear, concise policies, procedures, and penalties for violation, developing crisis/violence prevention and intervention programs, constructing crisis management plans, initiating effective security programs and generating early warning systems to identify troubled students(Carr, 2005; Flannery & Quinn-Leering, 2000; LaVant, 2001; Pezza & Bellotti, 1995; Roark, 1987). 20 Tertiary prevention includes serving victims, perpetrators, witnesses, and others associated with violent acts (LaVant, 2001; Pezza & Bellotti, 1995; Roark, 1987). The interventions that may be utilized to remediate and service these individuals include medical care, crisis management, counseling, personal protection, dissemination of information, substance abuse treatment for affected perpetrators, and legal advice. These services may also be rendered to spouses, partners, families, roommates, and friends of victims and perpetrators (Pezza & Bellotti, 1995). Campus Violence Legislation The public?s concern for campus violence has mandated that Congress and state legislatures and postsecondary institutions implement procedures to deal with violence against students (Hunnicutt & Kushibab, 1998). The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (The Clery Act), Campus Sexual Assault Victim?s Bill of Rights and Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act are legal mandates and policies that have been enacted to prevent and reduce campus violence. The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (The Clery Act) The Clery Act (1998) is a legal mandate that requires colleges and universities to submit violence prevention policies and report campus crime statistics. The act requires colleges/universities to submit a statement of current campus policies regarding campus law enforcement, security and access to campus facilities, procedures and facilities to report criminal offenses and other emergencies, and the institutions? response to criminal reports. The Clery Act also requires a description of violence prevention and intervention programs and the dissemination of information about those programs. Annually, colleges 21 and universities must disclose crimes statistics for criminal offenses in adherence to this act. Campus Sexual Assault Victims? Bill of Rights The Campus Sexual Assault Victims? Bill of Rights (1992) is a law that is a part of the High Education Act of 1992 (Public Law: 102-325, section 486(c)) that requires public and private colleges and universities that are federal student aid program participants to provide sexual assault accusers and the accused basic rights. At judicial hearings, both accusers and the accused must have equal opportunity to have others present and be informed of the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings. Sexual assault survivors shall be informed of their options to notify law enforcement, counseling services, and changing academic and living situations. Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act (2000) is an amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. ? 1232g, that allows colleges and universities to collect and disclose information about convicted, registered sex offenders that are either enrolled in or employed at postsecondary institutions. Predicting Social Behavior Social Psychology The core of theory for social psychology is the social nature of the individual person with a central interest in human nature as localized within the person as in general psychology. Allport (1968, p. 3) suggested that the discipline is ?an attempt to understand and explain how thought, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual imagined, or implied presence of others.? 22 According to Allport (1968), the most distinctive and indispensable concept in social psychology is attitude due to its frequent appearance in experimental and theoretical literature. The definition of attitude has evolved from Baldwin?s notion of being ready for attention or action in a definite way to Thomas and Znaniecki?s explanation of a mental process that ascertains a person?s actual and possible responses (as cited in Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 13). In the late 1960s, the notion that attitudes are the basis of behaviors was challenged to examine the relationship between particular domains or psychological objects. Attitude is one of many concepts in social psychology that contributes to the understanding of student behavior; however, there are several social behavior theories that are also important such as learning, expectancy-value, balance, cognitive dissonance and attribution theories (Lenski, 1992). Behaviorism is a type of learning theory based on the assumption that behavior is caused by cues in the environment such as stimuli that elicit a response (Sharp, 2003). Behavior is also caused by social influences such as imitation of behaviors modeled by adults through vicarious learning using the social learning theory (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). Expectancy-value theory is concerned with an individual?s motivation to perform a specific task based on his/her expectations of success and the value placed on a successful outcome (Edwards, 1954). Balance theory conceptualizes the motives for achieving social consistency of positive or negative entities; and imbalance of those entities causes tension (Heider, 1946). Cognitive dissonance is based on the premise that conflicting ideas cause tension, and as a result an individual seeks tension reduction (Festinger, 1957). Attribution theory is oriented with the attributions that individuals formulate about their own motives and the motives of 23 others based on the probability of increasing or decreasing a specific factor that may be seen as the behavior determinant (Heider, 1958; Triandis, 1977). Theory of Reasoned Action The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) integrated the assortment of attitude and behavior theories, and is based on the assumption that individuals are generally rational and systematic in using available information and that social behavior is not controlled by unconscious motives (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The second assumption is that an individual?s behavior intention to perform an act is the most appropriate predictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TRA postulates that an individual?s intentions are a function of the person in nature and reflection of social influence. Therefore, ?attitudes are a function of beliefs? (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p.7). The basis of the TRA conceptual framework is the relation of beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviors (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Beliefs refer to the information an individual has obtained about an object; attitudes are the evaluation of affect that favors or disfavors some object. Behavior intentions are an individual?s determinant to perform various behaviors. Behaviors are the observable actions of a person. The behavioral intention strength to perform a behavior derives from the probability that the individual will actually carry out some behavior and social influence. Risk Perception Theory Risk perception theory describes an individual?s negative or positive perceptions of his or her vulnerability to victimization. Risk perception research has generated considerable evidence that individuals are biased in the appraisal of his or her personal risk by underestimating ones victimization vulnerability, lack of information of others, 24 relying on inappropriate educational or protection interventions, and/or perceived risk is optimistically subjective in forming vulnerability judgments (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986; Slovic, Fischoff & Lichtensteinn, 1982; Weinstein, 1980, 1983, 1989). Therefore, individuals may be discouraged from taking appropriate safety precautions to avoid victimization due to optimistic biased appraisals of their own vulnerability (Perloff, 1983; Weinstein, 1980, 1989). Individuals tend to believe that he or she is less likely to experience health and safety issues in comparison to one?s peers (Weinstein, 1980, 1984). According to Weinstein (1980), college students see their chances of experiencing negative events less likely than average due to illusions of ?unique invulnerability? because they compare themselves to an inappropriate standard or the stereotype of individuals who they perceive as victims that fail to protect themselves. Perloff (1983) noted that individuals that have not been victimized by negative life events perceive themselves as less vulnerable to victimization; however, victims of crime, serious illness, or disasters have a significantly intensified sense of vulnerability. Literature illustrates many positive correlations between personal vulnerability beliefs and associated protective behavior. Although, it equally notes that perceived susceptibility may not be indicative of more profound action (as cited in Weinstein, 1989). Lenski (1992) postulates that understanding the prior beliefs and vulnerability perceptions that contribute to biased risk appraisal is crucial to examining how students? beliefs are related to their likelihood to engage in safety precautionary behaviors. 25 Health Behavior Theory Violence is considered a public health issue; therefore school and campus violence is a health issue that is closely related to personal safety. Lenski (1992) postulated that there is a close relationship between health and personal safety, which makes theories of health behavior important and applicable to precautionary safety behavior. Most health behavior theories have a central theme of risk perception or beliefs about potential harm, and many others have adapted social psychological theories such as attribution theory and Theory of Reasoned Action (Brewer, Chapman, Gibbons, Gerrard, McCaul, & Weinstein, 2007; Carter, 1990). The phenomenological approach, power of perceptions, influenced the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1974a). Health Belief Model The Health Belief Model was developed to provide understanding about specific health behaviors (Rosenstock, 1990). The Health Belief Model is composed of six independent variables with a clear disease avoidance orientation and positive health motivations (Becker, Maiman, Kirscht, Haefner & Drachman, 1977; Rosenstock, 1974b). The health beliefs and modifying variables interact to predict the likelihood of compliance to recommended behaviors. The health or safety (readiness) beliefs has four subsets: (a) motivation to comply; (b) perceived threat to a condition (Part 1 perceived susceptibility, Part 2 perceived severity of the condition) (Rosenstock, 1974a); (c) perceived benefits of compliance with recommended threat reducing behaviors; (d) perceived barriers of the recommended behavior. The modifying variables are demographic information and enabling factors that are prior experiences with the threatening condition or recommended behavior (as cited in Lenski, 1992). 26 Safety Belief Model Lenski (1992) developed the Safety Belief Model by combining variables from the Health Belief Model and campus crime literature to predict students? safety behavior intentions. The Safety Behavior Model?s structure closely resembles the Health Belief Model. The first factor was psychological readiness of the individual to act which is determined by the individual?s perceived susceptibility to campus crime and perceived severity of crime victimization. The second factor was the assessment of the benefits and barrier of taking safety precautions. The third factor was the modifying variables that include demographic information and enabling variables, which consists of prior experiences with the crime or recommended actions. The Safety Belief Model depicts interacting groups of safety beliefs and modifying variables that predicts safety behavior intention. The Safety Behavior Model consists of six variables groups which may be constructed to form the Safety Belief Model (see Figure 1). The readiness to act (safety beliefs) consists of the following subsets: (a) Motivation to Comply with Recommended Behaviors, (b) Perceived Threat (Part 1-Perceived Susceptibility to campus crime; Part 2- Perceived Severity of crime victimization), (c) Perceived Benefits of taking precautions, (d) Perceived Barriers of taking precautions. The modifying variables group includes demographic variables that include gender, race/ethnicity, age, and year in college and the enabling variables. The behavioral intention score was derived from the sum of the responses for each scale to obtain a score for each participant. 27 READINESS TO ACT (SAFETY BELIEFS) Motivation to Comply with Recommended Behavior MODIFYING VARIABLES Demographic Perceived Threat of Variables Crime Perceived Susceptibility Perceived Severity Likelihood of following Recommended Behavior Perceived Benefits Enabling Variables of Taking Precautions Perceived Barriers to Taking Precaution Figure 1. Safety Belief Model From ?Students? perceptions of campus safety and the effect on intended precautionary behavior,? by T. Lenski, 1992, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont, 1992).. Reprinted with permission. 28 The Safety Belief Model variable groups are scales that emphasize a specific set of safety beliefs that are associated with behavioral intent (Lenski, 1992; Lenski et al. 1996). The definition for each scale is as follows: 1. Motivation to Comply: The positive health incentives to perform a recommended behavior. 2. Perceived Benefits: The questions that assessed belief that performing recommended safety precautions would reduce the threat of victimization and the degree to which the individual and the institution are determined to improve personal safety. 3. Perceived Barrier: The items that assessed students? negative perceptions of the precautionary behaviors which include peers opinions of safety behaviors and convenience of use. 4. Perceived Susceptibility: The items that refer to feelings of vulnerability to campus violence. 5. Perceived Severity: The questions that evaluate the effect of campus crime victimization on college, work and personal life. 6. Perceived Threat: The scale is composed of Perceived Susceptibility and Perceived Severity. 7. Safety Beliefs: A scale that is developed from combining all of the other belief scales to assess the combined predictive power of the Safety Belief Model. 8. Safety Behavior Intention: The outcome variable that is derived from computing the individual?s likelihood to take the assessed precautions. 29 There is limited research using the Safety Belief Model. Lenski (1992) developed the Campus Safety Survey to assess value of the Safety Belief Model to predict student?s behavioral intentions, and she concluded that the model had ?significant power to predict whether or not a student intended to take precautionary steps to reduce crime victimization? (p. 109). Lenski et al. (1996) study also concluded that it was possible to predict students? intended behavior by combining safety belief, demographic information and prior life experiences. The most powerful predictor of behavioral intention was perceived barriers. The Perceived Susceptibility and Perceived Benefits were inconclusive about their ability to predict intended behavior. Physical Environment and Experience Influence on Behavior The physical environment influences human behavior by creating limitations on the types of event that can occur in a particular area (Moos, 1986). ?Knowledge about human environments can be practically useful by providing critical clues for selecting and acting in settings, including college campuses? (Lenski, 1992, p. 30). The same practicality can be associated with secondary school environments. Elements of the physical environment may permit or limit behaviors despite individual differences because the setting may determine and affect the inhabitants? behavior (Barker, 1968). Therefore, community living such as residence halls can discourage crime by the arrangement of bedrooms, hallways, exits, and lighting, while dark alleys can encourage criminal behaviors (Moos, 1986; Lenski, 1992). The locus of experience states that an organism?s past experience affects the present behavior by modifying the structure-function-irritability in a similar way that Pavlov conditioned reflexes in the dog (Frank, 1923). The past can be recovered because 30 it endures as an alteration of the nervous process, the muscles, and it functions in behavior as conditioned reflexes or habits. Therefore, past emotions and thoughts may be revived by the presentation of a stimulus that elicits the same actions and apprehensions as in the past situation. Champagne and Curley (2005) exclaimed that social experiences influence the brain through behavior. This was discovered through animal studies that suggest that variations of social interactions occurring within the standard range of behavior can yield long-term modifications in offspring. Social learning is essential to behavioral development because most behavior is learned from modeling- observing other actions and using it as a guide for behavior (Bandura, 1977; Champagne & Curley, 2005). According to social learning theory, human behavior is due to constant reciprocal interface between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences (Bandura, 1977). Numerous studies have described the effects of violence exposure/experience on an individual?s beliefs, behaviors, academic performances, safety perceptions, and mental health. Empirical evidence suggests that children raised in an abusive home environment may have inadequate development and personal ability that could significantly contribute to a cycle of adversity and violence carried into adulthood (Martin, 2002; McIntosh, 2002). Youth that have experienced significant exposure to community violence as victims or witnesses generally have poorer cognitive and achievement performance; they report more anxiety, apprehensions, internalizing behavior, and negative life experiences than those with lower exposure (Cooley-Quille, Boyd, Frantz, &Walsh, 2001; Delaney- Black, Covington, Ondersma, Nordstrom-Klee, Templin, & Ager, 2002; Ranter, Chiodo, Covington, & Sokol , 2006). Children with elevated levels of community violence 31 exposure in general do not feel safe within their community, home, or school (Collins, 2001). Chronic community violence exposure has been significantly correlated with emotional symptomology such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), separation anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, antisocial behavior and aggression (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kendall & Hammen, 1995; Cooley-Quille et al., 2001). Although little research has concentrated on the impact of school violence exposure and the existing literature does not expound on the effect of high school and/or college campus violence exposure on safety perceptions, mental health, or safety behavior intentions, school violence exposure has been significantly linked to mental health problems and internalizing/externalizing behaviors (Flannery, Wester, & Singer, 2004; Janosz, Archambault, Pagani, Pascal, Morin, & Bowen, 2008). Flannery et al. (2004) discovered that students exposed to elevated levels of school violence on a daily basis were significantly more likely to experience clinical levels of trauma symptoms including anxiety, anger, dissociation, depression and post-traumatic stress than those exposed to lower levels. The authors also found that clinically significant levels of trauma symptoms were higher for elementary school students than for high school students. Janosz et al. (2008) found that witnessing school violence increases the likelihood that the witness will act more aggressively, dislike school and possibly avoid attendance. School violence victimization was associated with high levels of internalizing behavior, and witnessing violence is a stronger risk factor for externalizing behavior. 32 CHAPTER III METHOD This chapter will describe the research method and design used to examine the relationship between high school and campus violence exposure and students? perceptions of safety and precautionary behavior. The research questions, description of the participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures and statistical data analyses are discussed. Participants The sample for this study consisted of college students from Auburn University located in Auburn, Alabama. In 2010, the total enrollment for Auburn University was 25,078, with 20,221 of the students classified as undergraduates, 3,874 were classified as graduate, 958 of the students were First Professional and the remaining 25 were unclassified. Fifty-one percent of the enrolled students were male (12,795) and 49% were female (12,283). Auburn University?s student population?s ethnicity/race was composed of students that describe themselves as White/Caucasian (20,527), Black or African American (2,839), Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander (503), American Indian or Native American (165), Hispanic ethnicity (592), Non-resident Alien (1022) and unknown (291). The survey e-mail invitation letter was distributed to a random sample of 1000 students 19 years of age or older. The survey was administered to potential participants by clicking on the link to the survey on the e-mail invitation letter that was dispersed by 33 the Office of Institutional Research (OIRA). The participants indicated informed consent by clicking the ?Next? button at the bottom of the information sheet. Instrumentation Instrument Construction The current study required the construction of a survey instrument that included high school and college campus violence exposure and intended precautionary behavior questions. A survey was constructed by modifying Lenski?s (1992) Campus Safety Survey and adding violence exposure questions with relevant demographic information from related literature. The instrument is titled Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey (CSPBS). The questions were worded as closely as possible to the Campus Survey with exceptions being the violence exposure questions and relevant demographics. The survey respondent?s demographic information included gender, age, race/ethnicity, year of study classification, residential status and high school graduation year. The Campus Safety Survey (Lenski, 1992) was constructed using the Safety Belief Model, which was developed from the Health Belief Model and crime literature. The Safety Belief Model consisted of five readiness to act safety beliefs that include: motivation to comply with recommended behavior, perceived susceptibility to campus crime (Part 1 of perceived threat of a crime variable), perceived severity of crime victimization (Part 2 of perceived threat of a crime variable), perceived benefits of taking precautions, and perceived barriers to taking precautions. The modifying variables include demographic and enabling variables, prior experience factors with the crime or recommended actions. The dependent variable is the behavioral intent score that is derived from the predicted use of safety precautions that include the following: 34 ? Walking with a friend after dark. ? Calling a friend to walk with after dark ? Calling campus escort service after shuttle hours ? Avoiding poorly lit paths ? Locking residential hall room door at night ? Locking residential hall room windows ? Closing propped exterior doors ? Arranging for first dates in familiar surrounding ? Avoiding leaving parties with new acquaintances ? Notifying security of suspicious persons According to Lenski?s (1992) Safety Belief Model I (see Figure 1), the readiness to act belief variables and modifying variables yield the outcome of safety behavior intention or the likelihood to follow recommended behavior. The author removed the following demographic information that was included in the Campus Safety Survey: length of academic program, transfer student status, Greek member status, self-reported grade point average, location of permanent residence, population density of permanent residence and socioeconomic status because the items were irrelevant to the current study. The following demographic information was added to the survey: name of respondent?s college, college residential status (on campus or off- campus) and high school graduation year. The violence exposure scales consists of two subscales: high school and college campus violence exposure. The information for theses scales were obtained from relevant literature about high school and college campus violence (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, 35 Farris, & Westat, 1998; Leonard, 1998). The high school violence subscale includes questions about whether or not the respondent has been exposed to several types of violent acts at high school, and their perceptions of how the high school violence exposure influenced their perception of safety on their college campus. The college violence scale also includes whether or not the respondent has been exposed to various types of possible violent encounters at college; the respondent rates how the exposure to violence influences their perception of safety on campus. The Campus Safety Survey indicated strong overall instrument reliability with a standardized item alpha of .8345 for the combine safety belief scales (Lenski, 1992). The reliability analysis also indicated that six of the eight safety belief scales yielded good or strong reliability (Table 7). The Motivation to Comply (?= .5732) and Perceived Benefits scales (? =.3633) had moderate to weak reliability, and the Enabling Factors (? = .0806) revealed extremely weak reliability (Lenski, 1992). Pilot Study After receiving approval from Auburn University?s and Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University?s Committee on Human Research (IRB), the instrument was administered in a pilot study to determine reliability and clarify questions for the final construction of the survey. The survey was administered to volunteer students at Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University in Normal, Alabama. The suggested corrections were evaluated; then the Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey was reviewed, corrected and prepared for final construction. The Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey indicated strong overall instrument reliability with a Cronbach?s alpha coefficient of .901 for the combine safety 36 belief, violence exposure and campus safety perceptions scales. The reliability analysis also indicated that seven of the thirteen scales and subscales yielded good or strong reliability (Table 1). The Enabling Factors (?= .659) and Violence Exposure scales (? =.619) had moderate reliability, while the Motivation to Comply (? = .417) and College Violence Exposure (? = .265) revealed extremely weak reliability. These results were consistent with Lenski?s Campus Safety Survey reliability statistics for the pilot study. Just as Lenski chose to retain the structure of the questionnaire due to the minimum contribution of the scales with weak standardized alphas to the overall model, the author chose to not delete any questions because substantial improvement would not result from the elimination of these questions (Lenski, 1992). Also, these scales are not pertinent to this overall study but were included to facilitate comparisons between the CSS and CSPBS. Table 1 Pilot Study Reliability of Scales/ Subscales Comparison Scales/Subscale Campus Safety Survey Campus Safety and Precautionary Behavior Survey ? ? Motivation to Comply .685 .417 Perceived Benefits .574 .736 Perceived Barriers .896 .892 Enabling Factors -.525 .659 Table 1 continued 37 Scales/Subscale Campus Safety Survey Campus Safety and Precautionary Behavior Survey ? ? Safety Belief .869 .903 Perceived Threat .794 .865 Perceived Severity .811 .814 Perceived Susceptibility .765 .864 Safety Behavior Intention .947 .910 Campus Safety Perceptions - .916 Violence Exposure - .619 High School Violence Exposure - .704 College Violence Exposure - .265 Data Collection After the Auburn University?s and Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University?s Committee on Human Research Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted permission to conduct this study, the pilot study was conducted followed by construction of the final CSPBS survey. The CSPBS survey was forwarded to Auburn University?s OIRA via e-mail containing an information sheet/ e-mail invitation letter about the purpose of the study, the participant?s role, confidentiality, anonymity and informed consent with a survey link to www.surveymonkey.com to be distributed to the sample. The informed consent explained that the individual gives his or her consent to participate in the survey by clicking the survey link, completing the survey and submitting it. The first administration of the CSPBS produced only 30 completed surveys. The study was modified to include two e-mail follow-up invitation letters. After IRB approved the modification and renewal of the study, the e-mail invitation letter was resent 38 to the original sample of students minus 202 graduated and/or transferred students. In an effort to distribute the survey to 1000 students, the OIRA replenished the sample to include 202 new randomly selected currently enrolled students at least 19 years of age or older. After concluding the survey administration, the survey data was exported from surveymonkey.com and imported into a Microsoft Excel 2010 file. Next, the file was verified in Excel; imported and formatted into IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19. Data Analysis The study employed a correlational research design. The correlational design was chosen to determine the relation of high school and college campus violence and students? perception of campus safety and safety-related precautionary behavior. Correlational designs establish whether a relationship exists between two variables, the extent of the relationship, and the direction of the relationship in non-experimental research; therefore, causal relationship is not possible to ascertain (Cherry, 2000; Heppner, Wampold, Kivlighan, 2008; Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). Descriptive statistics was used to examine the general features of the study data, specifically to analyze students? overall perceptions of safety and intended and implemented precautionary behaviors. The general information collected was number of participants, mean, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentages. This collected data described how college students perceive their safety on college/university campuses and their implementation and intended precautionary behaviors. Reliability analysis was conducted to assess the value of the instrument. 39 The first goal of this study is to ascertain the correlation between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. This goal was measured using bivariate correlation to determine if a relationship exists between high school violence and college students? perceptions of being safe on campus. Correlational analysis measured the degree and direction of the relationship of the two quantities without distinction between independent and dependent variables (Mertler &Vannatta, 2005). Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r), the most commonly used correlation technique, was conducted to describe the relationship between high school violence and college students? perceptions of being safe on campus (Heppner et al., 2008; Mertler &Vannatta, 2005). This type of analysis was most appropriate for the proposed research question because it measured the presence, degree, and direction of the relationship between variables (Cherry, 2000; Heppner et al., 2008; Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). The second aim is to ascertain the degree that exposure to college violence correlates with students? perceptions of campus safety. The researcher also utilized the Pearson moment correlation technique to measure the relationship using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19 software package. The third aim is to determine the difference between gender and students? perceptions of campus safety and their safety-related precautionary behavior. Descriptive statistics will be used to examine male versus female differences in their perceptions of being safe on campus and intended/implemented precautionary behavior. The statistical analysis that will be used to evaluate this research question is the multivariate one-way analysis of variance (MANOVA). MANOVA is a statistical analysis that tests for 40 significant differences between two or more related dependent variables (students? perceptions of safety and intended/implemented precautionary behavior) while controlling among the dependent variables (Merter & Vannatta, 2005). The fourth aim of this investigation is to examine the ability of high school and college campus violence exposure to predict students? intended safety-related precautionary behavior. Multiple regression is a statistical procedure that describes how multiple predictor variables are associated with a single criterion variable (Heppner et al., 2008; Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). Multiple regression was the most appropriate statistical analysis to predict the contribution of predictor factors (high school and college violence exposure) on students? intended and implemented safety-related precautionary behaviors. 41 CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter will present the results of the statistical analyses used to test the hypotheses of this study. The first section of this chapter will be a summary of the descriptive statistics for the survey participants that include the reliability data and analyses. The findings are presented descriptively and formatted in tabular form. One thousand randomly selected Auburn University students at least 19 years of age or older were solicited to complete the electronic survey. The sample received an e- mail invitation letter to participate in the study and follow-up e-mails urging their participation. The first invitation letter resulted in 30 respondents. The study was redesigned to include two follow-up email invitations. After IRB approved the modifications, the e-mail invitation letter was redistributed and 37 new responses were collected. The first follow-up invitation resulted in 22 respondents and the second resulted in 23. One survey was excluded due to no response. There were 111 surveys completed; therefore, the return rate was 11%. Reliability Analysis The overall reliability of the instrument?s scales and subscales varied from moderate to strong (Table 2). All of the Cronbach?s alphas for corresponding scales in the Campus Safety Survey (CSS) were comparable to reliability reported in the Campus Safety and Precautionary Behaviors Survey (CSPBS) was modified. Noted reliability differences were identified for Perceived Benefits, Enabling Factors, and Perceived 42 Severity; however, these scales were not pertinent to this study and only served as a comparison basis between the CSS and CSPBS. Enabling Factors, Perceived Severity, and Motivation to Comply reliability coefficient alphas were too low to be considered reliable and were excluded from further analyses. This paragraph discusses the reliability of the scales and subscales in the CSPBS that were not in the CSS. The Campus Safety Perceptions scale generated a coefficient alpha of .931, and the Safety Behavior Intention scale yielded a coefficient alpha of .803. The College Violence Exposure subscale yielded a coefficients alpha of .694. The coefficient alpha for High School Violence Exposure subscale was .701. The combined subscales created the Violence Exposure scale, which produced a coefficient alpha of .748. Campus Safety Perceptions Campus safety perceptions were evaluated using a 5-point Likert-type scale that varied in the extent that an individual feels safe in specific locations on campus at daylight and after dark. The majority of students indicated that they felt safe on the Auburn campus during the daylight hours. Ninety-two percent of the respondents indicated that they did feel safe or very safe in the parking decks during daylight, while the remaining 8% indicated that they felt neither safe nor unsafe. Approximately 95% of the participants revealed that they felt safe in the student parking lots during the day. Similar results were reported for the following: safe during class (100%), safe in the student center (96%), safe riding the student transit system (93%), and safe walking on campus (98%). Approximately 3% of the respondents reported that they felt unsafe in classrooms alone during the day, while 5% felt neither safe nor unsafe, and the remaining 43 92% felt safe. Three percent of respondents also felt unsafe working in the library stacks alone during the day versus the 7% that felt neither safe nor unsafe, and 80% felt safe. Students? perception of campus safety during the day is consistent with prior research conclusions that indicate that most students feel safe on college campuses during the day (Fisher, Sloan, & Wilkins, 1995; McConnell, 1997). The number of student respondents who felt safe or unsafe at dark varied according to campus locations. Survey respondents did feel safe in the following settings after dark: during class (77%), in the classroom alone (51%), riding on the student transit system (72%), working in the library stacks (67%), student parking lots (43%), and parking decks (41%). The setting that caused most of the participants (39%)to feel unsafe at night was walking on campus alone after dark. Most survey respondents (81%) indicated that they did not worry or that they worried very little about crime victimization on campus at any time. When queried about current use of safety precautions to improve personal safety from crime on campus, 61% of the participants reported that they currently engaged in safety precautionary behaviors. Safety Behavior Intentions For all of the safety precautions presented, a majority of the participants indicated that they probably will or definitely will engage in some precautionary behavior in the coming month. Seventy-six percent indicated that they probably would avoid poorly lit paths each time they walk after dark; 90% reported that they would lock their residence hall room and classrooms at night; 83% stated that they would keep residence hall rooms or classroom windows locked each night; 72% indicated that they would close a propped door each time one was found; 80% reported that they would arrange for first dates to 44 occur in familiar surroundings; 79% state that they would avoid leaving a party alone with a new acquaintance, and 75 % indicated that they would notify campus security if they saw a suspicious person on campus. Twenty-three percent indicated that they definitely will not, 44% stated they probably won?t, while 22% indicated that they probably will and the remaining 11% declared they would definitely ask a friend to walk across campus with them after dark. Table 2 Reliability of Scales/ Subscales Comparison Scales/Subscale Campus Safety Survey Campus Safety and Precautionary Behavior Survey ? ? Motivation to Comply .573 .563 Perceived Benefits .363 .612 Perceived Barriers .793 .803 Enabling Factors .081 .443 Safety Belief .84 .814 Perceived Threat .845 .843 Perceived Severity .797 .459 Perceived Susceptibility .797 .855 Safety Behavior Intention .834 .803 Campus Safety Perceptions - .931 Violence Exposure - .748 High School Violence Exposure - .701 College Violence Exposure - .694 ________________________________________________________________________ Sample Characteristics The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics, principally frequencies. The demographic information collected 45 includes: a) college/university, b) gender, c) race or ethnicity, d) classification, e) residential status, and f) high school graduation date. The demographic results are presented in Table 3. Sixty-three percent of the survey respondents were female; 36% of the respondents were males, and the remaining 1% did not indicate a gender. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents described themselves as White/Caucasian; 43% Black or African American; 12% Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander; 2% American Indian or Native American; 2% Puerto Rican; 2% Latin/South/Central American or other Hispanic ethnicity; and 1% bi-racial. Of these participants their current classifications were 3.6% Freshmen, 11.7%; Sophomores, 16.2 %; Juniors, 27.9%; Seniors; and/or 39.6% Graduate/Professionals. The participants of the study consisted of 70.3% in-state residents, 28.8% out-of-state residents and .9% did not indicate a residential status. The high school graduation dates of the survey respondents were distributed as follows: 1970- 1974 (2.7%); 1975-1979 (.9%); 1980-1984 (.9%); 1985-1989 (3.6%); 1990-1994 (2.7%); 1995-1999 (1.8%); 2000-2004 (17.1%); 2005-2009 (65.8%); and missing (4.5%) Table 3 Demographic Description Descriptor Variable n Percentage (%) Gender Male Female Missing 40 70 1 36 63.1 .9 Race or Ethnicity White/Caucasian Black or African American Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander American Indian or Native American 43 48 13 2 38.7 43.2 11.7 1.8 Table 3 continued 46 Research Question 1: To what extent is there a relationship between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety? To answer Research Question 1, correlations were examined between exposure to high school violence and campus safety perceptions (Table 4). The High School Descriptor Variable n Percentage (%) Race or Ethnicity Puerto Rican Latin/South/Central American or other Hispanic Ethnicity Biracial 2 2 1 1.8 1.8 .9 Classification Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate/Professional Missing 4 13 18 31 44 1 3.6 11.7 16.2 27.9 39.6 .9 Residential Status In-state Out-of-state Missing 78 32 1 70 28.8 .9 High School Graduation 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 Missing 3 1 1 4 3 2 19 73 5 2.7 .9 .9 3.6 2.7 1.8 17.1 65.8 4.5 .9 47 Violence Exposure subscale mean was 18.3 (SD=2.03); the Campus Safety Perceptions Scale mean was 64.5 (SD=9.59). The results of the correlational analyses indicated that there was a statistically significant but small correlation, r(100) = .21, p<.05. Research Question 2: To what extent is there a relationship between exposure to college violence and students? perceptions of campus safety? Correlations were conducted to evaluate the relationship between students? college violence exposure and campus safety perceptions for research question 2 (Table 4). The College Violence Exposure subscale mean was 15.8 (SD=1.36). The correlation shows that there was a small, statistically significant relation between college violence exposure and students? perceptions of safety, r(98)=.18, p<.05. The High School Violence Exposure and College Violence Exposure subscales were combined to create a Violence Exposure scale. The Violence Exposure scale mean was 34 (SD=2.7). The correlation indicated that there is a significant but small relationship between violence exposure and students? perceptions of safety r(97)=.244, p<.01 (Table 4). Table 4 Correlation Analyses between Violence Scales/Subscales and Campus Safety Perceptions Scale n r High School Violence Exposure 108 .210* College Violence Exposure 106 .176* Violence Exposure 105 .244** *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). Research Question 3: To what extent is there a gender difference in students? perceptions of campus safety and intended safety-related precautionary behavior? 48 The third research question examined the relationship between male and female differences in campus safety perceptions and their intended safety-related precautionary behavior. The Campus Safety Perceptions scale mean for females was 61.56 (SD=8.69) and for males was 69.37 (SD= 8.63) (Figure 2); the total mean was 64.5 (SD=9.59). The Safety Behavior Intentions scale mean for females was 25.67 (SD=4.26) and for males was 23.16 (SD= 3.8) (Figure 3); the total mean was 24.66 (SD=4.26). A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of gender on campus safety perceptions and safety behavior intentions (Table 5). MANOVA results revealed that gender significantly affects the campus safety perceptions and safety behavior intentions combined, Wilks? ? of .798, F(2,92) = 11.62, p< .01, Observed power =.993. The multivariate partial ?2 based on Wilks? ? probability distribution analysis was .20. 49 Table 5 Campus Safety Perceptions and Safety Behavior Intentions Scales by Gender Scales Male Female Mean SD Mean SD f P (sig.) Campus Safety Perceptions 69.4 8.63 64.6 8.69 18.49 .000** Safety Behavior Intentions 23.2 3.79 25.7 4.29 8.52 .004** Note: Wilk?s ?=.798, p =.000, Observed power = .993, *p < .05, **p < .01 Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the dependent variables (campus safety perceptions and safety intentions) were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Each ANOVA was tested at the .025 level using the Bonferroni method to control for Type I error. The follow-up ANOVAs results indicated that campus safety perceptions 50 (F(1, 93) =18.49, p< .01, ?2=.17) and safety behavior intentions (F(1, 93) =8.52, p< .01, ?2=.08) were both significantly different for gender. After data results revealed that gender differences are evident for campus safety perceptions and safety behavior intentions, eleven one-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were gender differences on each scale without accounting for the combination of the dependent variables. The results indicated that in nine of the eleven scales/ subscales there were significant gender differences; the exceptions were the College Violence Exposure subscale and Safety Belief scale (Table 6). Table 6 Univariate Comparison of Scales/Subscales by Gender Scales/Subscale Male Female F Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Campus Safety Perceptions 69.64 8.69 61.45 8.89 21.06 .000 Safety Behavior Intentions 23.21 3.76 25.63 4.29 8.38 .005 Perceived Threat 96.42 8.51 90.87 9.28 9.00 .003 Perceived Susceptibility 93.79 8.81 87.33 9.34 6.40 .013 Perceived Barriers 33.33 5.96 35.82 4.80 5.21 .025 Perceived Benefits 30.11 3.12 31.89 3.52 6.74 .011 High School Violence Exposure 18.93 2.08 17.92 1.93 6.33 .013 College Violence Exposure 15.95 1.49 15.65 1.28 1.17 .282 Violence Exposure 34.82 2.96 33.52 2.73 5.77 .018 Safety Belief 171.40 11.49 173.66 13.84 .572 .452 51 Research Question 4: To what extent does the exposure to school and college campus violence predict students? intended safety-related precautionary behavior? Multiple regression was conducted to determine the extent to which high school and college violence exposure predicts students? safety behavior intentions (Table 7). The regression model results indicated that high school and college violence exposure does not significantly predict safety behavior intentions, R2=.039, R2adj=.019, F(2,96)=1.94, p>.01. A second multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the following scale indicators: Safety Belief, High School Violence Exposure, Campus Safety Perceptions, Perceived Benefits, Violence Exposure, Perceived Threat and Perceived Susceptibility to predict Safety Behavior Intentions. The linear combination of these indicators was significantly related to safety behavior intentions, R2=.22, R2adj=.14, F(7,69)=2.815, p=.01. The multiple correlation coefficient for the sample was .47, indicating that approximately 22% of the variance of safety behavior intentions in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of the Safety Belief, High School Violence Exposure, Campus Safety Perceptions, Perceived Benefits, Violence Exposure, Perceived Threat and Perceived Susceptibility scales. Table 7 Coefficients for Violence Predictors Predictors B ? t p Bivariate r Partial High School Violence Exposures -.453 -.206 -1.97 .051 -.86 -.197 College Violence Exposure .240 .070 .670 .504 .009 .068 The predictors for safety behavior intentions are presented in Table 8 to indicate the relative strength of the individual predictors. Five of the seven bivariate correlations 52 between the predictors and Safety Behavior Intentions were negative and none was statistically significant (p<.05). Neither were the partial correlations significant. Table 8 Coefficients for Predictors Predictors B ? t p Bivariate r Partial r Safety Belief .188 .530 .118 .091 .018 .202 High School Violence Exposure -1.01 -.445 -1.89 .064 -.236 -.221 Campus Safety Perceptions -.170 -.320 -.480 .633 -.261 -.058 Perceived Benefits -.350 -2.62 -1.15 .253 .094 -.138 Violence Exposure .416 .248 1.05 .296 -.160 .126 Perceived Threat .824 1.49 1.42 .158 -.154 .169 Perceived Susceptibility -.916 -1.68 -1.12 .266 -.189 -.134 Null Hypotheses The null hypotheses are assumptions that were created before data collection for this study. Listed below is the decision to reject or retain the null hypotheses based on the significance or nonsignificance of the statistical tests. 1. There is no relationship between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. There is a statistically significant correlation between high school violence exposure and students? campus safety perceptions. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. 2. There is no relationship between exposure to college violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. The correlational analysis indicated there is statistically significant relationship between the college violence exposure and students? campus safety perceptions. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. 53 3. There is no gender difference in students? perceptions of campus safety and intended safety-related precautionary behavior. The null hypothesis for the relation between gender and students? perceptions of campus safety and their safety-related precautionary behavior should be rejected based on the significance of the linear combinations of the dependent variables of the MANOVA and the ANOVAs. 4. There is no relationship between prediction of student?s intended safety-related precautionary behaviors from exposure to school and campus violence. The null hypothesis should be retained because high school and college violence exposure did not significantly predict safety behavior intentions. 54 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This chapter will present elaborations on the findings of this study, descriptions of the limitations of this investigation, discussion of implications, and recommendations for future research. The gender ratio of the survey respondents was inconsistent with the overall enrollment at Auburn University. Sixty-three percent of the participants were female, while 49% of the Auburn University?s enrollment were female during the current academic year, 2010-2011 (Auburn University Office of Enrollment, n. d.). Thirty-six percent of the respondents were males and 51% of the currently enrolled students are male. One person in the sample did not indicate a gender. For the 2010-2011 year, Auburn University student population ethnicity/race was composed of students that classified themselves as White/Caucasian (82%), Black or African American (11%), Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander (2%), American Indian or Native American (<1%), Hispanic ethnicity (2%), Non-resident Alien (4%) and unknown (1%). In the present study, thirty-eight percent of the participants described themselves as White/Caucasian with 43% Black or African American, 12% Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian or Native American, 4% Hispanic ethnicity and 1% bi-racial. The total enrollment of undergraduates for Auburn University was 20,221 (73%), graduate/professional students 6,857 (27%). Sixty-seven of the survey respondents 55 indicated that they were classified as an undergraduate, which represented approximately 60% of the sample. Forty-four students indicated their classification as a Graduate or Professional student, which accounted for about 40% of the sample population. A higher percentage of graduate/ professional students than in the Auburn university population responded to the survey than undergraduates. Since graduate students are generally involved in research of their own or plan to engage in research as a requirement for graduation, they are likely to have a heightened awareness of the importance of research participation. The first aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between exposure to high school violence and students? perceptions of campus safety. The correlational analysis between the High School Violence Exposure scale and Campus Safety Perceptions indicated that there is a small, positive correlation between high school violence exposure and students? campus safety perceptions. The results suggest that as high school violence exposure increases, campus safety perceptions (feeling safe) increase. This direction is contrary to what would be expected. When survey respondents who were exposed to high school violence were asked to what extent those experiences caused them to feel more unsafe on the university campus, 64% indicated that there was no contribution, 19 % indicated that there was a little contribution, 16% indicated that there was some contribution, and 1% indicated a great deal contributed. Overall, most students do not believe that their high school violence exposure are related to their feelings of being safe or unsafe on Auburn University?s campus. Of the respondents who indicated exposure to high school violence, 49% reported that they were exposed to a verbal argument, 40% to physical assault or fight, 10% to 56 robbery and 1% to sexual assault. Sixty-seven percent of the high school violence exposure incidents were witnessed by respondents, 26% of the respondents were victims, and 7% of the respondents reported that they initiated the violence. According to Saunders (1991), interpersonal violence perpetrators frequently attempt to provide socially correct answers instead of truthful answers on questionnaires; therefore, it is not surprising that only a small percentage of respondents identified themselves as initiators of violence. The second aim of this investigation was to ascertain the extent that exposure to college violence correlates with students? perceptions of campus safety. The correlation between college violence exposure and campus safety perceptions was positive and statistically significant, but the relationship is very small. The exposure to college campus violence correlated with students? feelings of safety was positively statistically significant, but small. In both cases, interpretations should be cautioned due to the small magnitude of the correlations. Fifty-four percent of the respondents who indicated exposure to college violence reported that they were exposed to a verbal argument, 27% physical assault or fight, 18% robbery and 1% sexual assault. Sixty-seven percent of the college violence exposure respondents witnessed, 27% were victims and 6% initiated these acts of violence. Approximately 36% of the survey respondents who have been exposed to violence witnessed verbal arguments. Only 22 respondents were victims of any type of violence, with 50% being associated with a verbal argument. Therefore, most respondents had little or no direct exposure to actual physical/sexual assault. 57 When survey respondents who were exposed to college violence were queried about what extent those experiences caused them to feel more unsafe on the university campus, 50% indicated that there was no contribution, 24 % indicated that there was a little contribution, 20% indicated that there was some contribution, and 6% indicated a great deal contributed. Thus, most of this sample does not believe that their college violence exposure relates to their feelings of being unsafe on campus. The third aim was to ascertain if there are gender differences in students? perceptions of campus safety and their safety-related precautionary behavior. The multivariate analysis of variance and follow-up univariate analyses of variances indicated that gender significantly affects campus safety perceptions and safety behavior intentions. The mean for males suggest that they generally feel safer on campus and have fewer precautionary behavior intentions than females, which is consistent with most prior literature (Fisher, 1995; Fisher et al., 1995; McConnell, 1997; Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002; Jennings, Gover, & Pudrzynska, 2007;Woolnough, 2009). Only one prior study (Lenski, 1992) found that males had higher precautionary intentions than females. These results suggest that males and females differ in many aspects related to campus safety and precautionary behavior intentions. Surprisingly, men seem to perceive themselves as more susceptible to crime than women, but feel safer on campus than women. They also perceive that they are at a greater threat for crime victimization than women. Results suggest that women perceive that there is more benefit in taking precautions than men. Females also perceive that there are fewer barriers or hassles in taking safety precautions than males. This is quite alarming because research has concluded that crime victimization of male college students is more prevalent than 58 females for crimes in college and the general population (Formby & Sigler, 1982; Fisher, 1995; Gibson et al, 2002; Jennings et al., 2007). The results also suggest that men have been exposed to slightly more violence at high school and high school/college combined than females; however, the mean scores were about equal for both genders for college violence exposure. Overall, the men?s and women?s mean scores for safety belief variables were approximately equal. The fourth aim of this investigation was to examine the extent to which high school and college campus violence exposure predicts students? intended and implemented safety- related precautionary behavior. The regression analysis indicated that violence exposure does not significantly predict safety behavior intentions. Further analyses also indicated that Safety Belief, High School Violence Exposure, Campus Safety Perceptions, Perceived Benefits, Violence Exposure, Perceived Threat and Perceived Susceptibility do not significantly predict Safety Behavior Intentions. It is tempting to conclude based on the correlational analyses that none of the predictors is useful to predict Safety Behavior Intentions. However, the relative importance of these predictors is quite difficult to judge because they are correlated. Prior literature has concluded that the Safety Belief Model is a significant predictor for safety behavior intentions, fear of property crime, violent crimes, and library crime, as well as the perceived likelihood of violent crime (Lenski, 1982; Woolnough, 2009). Implications for Secondary and Post-secondary Administrators The information gained in this study could aid secondary and post-secondary administrators in several ways. Most importantly, this study provides insight about how safe students feel on college campuses and how their violence exposure in high school 59 and college affects their campus safety perceptions and intended precautionary safety behavior. This information provides an opportunity for high school and college administrators to reflect on the overall impact of violence at the secondary level on the post-secondary level and vice versa. Both aspects are important because incoming Freshman only have their high school experiences and media influences to aid in their perceptions of campus safety; high school violence statistics could provide information to post-secondary administrators about the overall trends of incoming Freshman. Also, this information may help administrators initiate policies that increase feelings of safety and intended precautionary behavior. For example, programs may be created to reduce victimization. Implications for High School/ College Mental Health Providers School counselors, school psychologists, and other mental health providers directly involved with high school and college populations could use the results in this study in many ways. First of all, mental health provides could use the information to develop and implement counseling programs that emphasize increasing safety perceptions and intended safety precautionary behavior. Second, mental health providers may possibly use this information to advocate for resources that contribute to making students feel safe. Last, many respondents reported exposure to verbal arguments at the secondary and post-secondary levels and mental health providers may find it useful to develop conflict resolution programs that teach individuals how to resolve conflict appropriately. 60 Implications for Campus Security The results of this study could provide useful information to campus security agencies. Overall, most respondents feel safe on the Auburn University?s campus, but the results of this study indicate that 86% of students feel safer with the presence of campus security. Therefore, it may be adventitious to keep campus security visible in sparsely populated areas day and night to continue fostering a sense of safety on campus. Eighty- four percent of the respondents stated that they were aware of the campus safety services available on campus, but only 32% reported that they have ever used any of the services. Increasing student use of campus safety services through safety initiative programs may be beneficial to effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention on campus. Fifty-four percent of the survey respondents indicated that taking self-defense classes makes them feel safer; however, only 23% have actually attended a crime awareness or self-defense workshop. Campus security may perpetuate these feeling by providing regularly scheduled self-defense classes and aggressively recruiting students for the workshops. Approximately 72% of the respondents felt safer because of the presence of light emergency stations and 85% felt safer because of the campus escort service. Thus, these results of this study could provide value information for campus security to advocate for the further use of funds to provide these two resources to students. Limitations There are several limitations of this study. The most primary limitation of the study is the use of a self-report measure. Self-report measures are notorious for the possibility of respondents not responding honestly to questions or response bias in general. Students may have been hesitant to respond truthfully to questions about violent 61 incidents and their overall involvement in those incidents for fear of being perceived as bad or immoral. Also, respondents may not accurately remember violent incidents in high school or on college campuses and/or their intended precautionary behaviors. A second limitation of this investigation is the overall design of the survey using an electronic format. We live in a technological society and email is an official means of communication at Auburn University. The overall availability of computers for each student is unknown. Computer labs are conveniently located throughout campus; however, some students might not be inclined to answer a survey with questions about their perceptions of campus safety and violence exposure in a public setting. Some students also may not have access to computers outside of campus. A third limitation of this study is the inability to generalize the finding of this study nationwide or even statewide. The small sample size, lack of representation of a national sample of college students significantly limits the generalizability of the findings of this study to other populations. The sample consisted only of Auburn University students and the respondents were not representative of the overall campus demographics in some respects. Future Research There is continued need for research related to students? perceptions of safety, safety behavior intentions, violence exposure, and associated behavior data, violence prevention and intervention strategies, and victimization rates. The findings of this study have provided many possibilities for future investigations that would benefit both high schools and college campuses. 62 Future studies should incorporate the use of qualitative questions to further investigate student?s perceptions of safety. Qualitative responses could be used in conjunction with self-report scales to elaborate on students? overall perceptions and provide a more comprehensive study that regulates for social desirability bias due to the need to use his/her own words to describe his/her perceptions. Other areas of future research may use actual behavioral data versus behavior intentions to assess how students actually behave in relations to safety. The findings would be quite insightful about students? actual precautionary behaviors and perceptions of safety although more difficult to obtain. Future studies should also include a larger sample size to adequately support significant findings, to increase generalizability, and to ensure representation from inner city and/or rural schools and more diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds. The respondent pool should include more colleges and universities from different regions to be more representative of the nation and to ease in the ability to make comparisons. A broader sample would aid administrators, campus security, school psychologists and other key personnel directly interested in student safety in making predictions and implementing programs from the available research. 63 References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Allport, G. W. (1968). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 1-80). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amar, A. (2006). College Women's Experience of Stalking: Mental Health Symptoms and Changes in Routines. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 20(3), 108-116. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2005.10.003 Arias, E., Anderson, R., Kung, H., Murphy, S., & Kochanek, K. (2003). Deaths: Final data for 2001. National Vital Statistics Report, 52(3). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Auburn University Office of Enrollment. (n. d.). Auburn at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/factsandfigures.html Baker, J. A. (1998). Are we missing the forest for the trees? Considering the social context of school violence. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 29-44. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00048-4 Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. 64 Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35( 3), 125-139. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.125 Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts for studying the environment of human behavior. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press. Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 409-418. Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26, 2, 136-145. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 Brener, N. N., Lowry, R. R., Barrios, L. L., Simon, T. T., & Eaton, D. D. (2005). Violence-related behaviors among high school students?United States, 1991? 2003. Journal of School Health, 75(3), 81-85. doi:10.1111/j.1746- 1561.2005.00001.x Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 136-145. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 Campus Sexual Assault Victims? Bill of Rights, Pub. L. No. 102-325, ?486(c), (1992). Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 106-386, ?1601, (2000). Carr, J. L. (2005). American college health association campus violence white paper. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association. Carter, W. B. (1990). Health behavior as a rational process: Theory of reasoned reaction 65 and multiattribute utility theory. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 63- 91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2000). Assessing health risk behaviors among young people: Youth risk behavior surveillance system, at a-glance. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/yrbsaag.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillance ? United States, 2007 Surveillance summaries, 2008. MMWR 2008, 57, SS-4, 1- 136. Champagne, F. A., & Curley, J. P. (2005). How social experiences influence the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(6), 704-709. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.001 Cherry, A. L. (2000). A research primer for the helping professions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Brooks/Cole Coakley, J., & Donnelly, P. (2004). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. Toronto, Canada: McGraw- Hill. Collins, K. (2001). Children's perceptions of safety and exposure to violence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10(1-2), 31-49. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Cooley-Quille, M., Boyd, R. C., Frantz, E., & Walsh, J. (2001). Emotional and Behavioral Impact of Exposure to Community Violence in Inner-City Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(2), 199-206. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 66 Crepeau-Hobson, M., Filaccio, M., & Gottfried, L. (2005). Violence Prevention after Columbine: A Survey of High School Mental Health Professionals. Children & Schools, 27(3), 157-165. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Deisinger, Cychosz, & Jaeger, (1998). Strategies for dealing with violence. In A. M. Hoffman, J. H. Schuh, and R. Fenske (Eds.), Violence on campus: Defining the problems, strategies for action (187-206). Gaitherburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Delaney-Black. V., Covington, C., Ondersma, S., Nordstrom-Klee, B., Templin T., & Ager, J., (2002). Violence exposure, trauma, and IQ/reading deficits among urban children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156(3), 280-285. Eisenbraun, K. D. (2007). Violence in schools: Prevalence, prediction, and prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 459-469. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.008 Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 4, 380- 417. doi:10.1037/h0053870 Elias, M. (2008, April 15). Colleges put out safety nets. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-04-15-college- safety_N.htm. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Crime in the United States 2008. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_09.html Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. CA: Stanford University Press. Fiester, L., & Nathanson, S. P. (1996). Lessons learned from three violence prevention projects. Journal of School Health, 66(9), 344. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 67 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I (1975). Belief attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction of the theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fisher, B. S. (1995). Crime and fear on campus. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539(1), 85-101. Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., & Wilkins, D. L. (1995). Fear and perceived risk of victimization in an urban university setting. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (179-209). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424?430. doi:10.1097/00004583-199303000-00026 Flannery, D., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, N. (1997). School violence: Risk, preventive intervention, and policy. Urban Diversity Series No. 109. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu. Flannery, D. J. & Quinn-Leering, K. (2000).Violence on college campuses: Understanding its impact on student well-being. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24(10) 839-855. Flannery, D. J., Wester, K. L., & Singer, M. I. (2004). Impact of Exposure to Violence in School on Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Behavior. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5), 559-573. doi:10.1002/jcop.20019 Formby, W. A., & Sigler, R. T. (1982). Crime and victim characteristics on college campuses: A research report. Victimology, 7(1-4), 218-223. 68 Frank, L. K. (1923). The Locus of Experience. Journal of Philosophy, 20, 327-330. doi:10.2307/2939546 Gibson, C., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 537-565. Hauser, C. & O?Connor, A. (2007, April 16). Virginia tech shooting leaves 33 dead. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cndshooting.html. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107- 112. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E. , & Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Research design in counseling. (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomason. Heppner, P. P. & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation & research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole- Thomason Learning Herrmann, M, (2008). Ready, set, respond. University Business, 11( 4), 40-41H. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Hyman, I. A., & Perone, D. C. (1998). The other side of school violence: Educator 69 policies and practices that may contribute to student misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 7-27. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)87007-0 Hunnicutt, K. & Kushibab, P. (1998). The legal response to violence on campus. In A. M. Hoffman, J. H. Schuh, and R. H. Fenske (Eds.). Violence on campus: Defining the problems, strategies for action (pp.273-299). Gaithersburg, MD: Apsen Publishers, Inc. Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., Pascal, S., Morin, A. S., & Bowen, F. (2008). Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adolescence?. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 6, 600-608. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.011 Jeanne Clery Disclosure or Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Pub. L. No. 105-244, ?486 (e), (1998). Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Pudrzynskas, D. (2007). Are Institutions of Higher Learning Safe? A Descriptive Study of Campus Safety Issues and Self-Reported Campus Victimization among Male and Female College Students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(2), 191-208. doi:10.1080/10511250701383327 Kendall, P. & Hammen, C. (1995). Abnormal Psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (Eds.), (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. LaVant, B. (2001). Understanding violence on the college campuses and strategies for prevention. In D. S. Sandhu (Ed.): Faces of violence: Psychological correlates, concepts, and intervention strategies (pp. 73-86). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science 70 Publishers. Lenski, T. J. (1992). Students? perceptions of campus safety and the effect on intended precautionary behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont. Lenski, T. J., Meyers, H., & Hunter, D. (1996). Understanding student?s intentions to use safety precautions. NASPA Journal, 33( 2),82-93. Leonard, G. R. (1998). Experiences of campus violence among college students .The Pennsalvannia State, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 4574. Martin, S. G. (2002). Children exposed to domestic violence: Psychological considerations for health care practitioners. Holistic Nursing Practice, 16, 3, 7-15. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (n. d.) Retrieved from http://www.merriam-. webster.com/dictionary/violence. Mertler, C. A. & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing. McConnell, E. H. (1997). Fear of crime on campus: A study of a southern university. Journal of Security Administration, 20(2), 22-46. McIntosh (2002). Thought in the face of violence: A child?s need. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 3, 229-241. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Moos, R. H. (1986). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. National Association of School Psychologist (NASP) (2006). Position statement on violence. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org /about_nasp ./pospaper_violence.aspx. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1998). Violence and discipline 71 problems in U. S. public schools: 1996-1997. Retrieved from http.edu.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98030/index.asp?sectionID=5 National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2002. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/schoolcrime/ National Center of Education Statistics (NCES). (2006). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007302rev.pdf National School Boards Association (NSBA). (1993). Violence in schools: How America?s school boards are safeguarding our children. Alexandria, VA: Author. Northern Illinois University (2008). Northern Illinois website. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/memorial/updates.shtml Paludi, M. A. & DeFour, D. C. (1998). Sexual harassment of students: The hidden campus violence. In A. M. Hoffman, J. H. Schuh, and R. Fenske (Eds.), Violence on campus: Defining the problems, strategies for action (pp. 187-206). Gaitherburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Perloff, L. S. (1983). Perceptions of vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 2, 41-61. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self?other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 3, 502-510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.502 Pezza, P. E. (1995). College campus violence: The nature of the problem and its frequency. Educational Psychology Review, 7(1), 93-103. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 72 Pezza, P. E. & Bellotti, A. (1995). College campus violence: Origins, impacts, and responses. Educational Psychology Review, 7(1), 105-123. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Prochaska, J. O. & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheorethical analysis. Belmont, CA. Thomason Brooks/Cole. Ratner, H., Chiodo, L., Covington, C., Sokol, R. J., Ager, J., & Delaney-Black, V. (2006). Violence Exposure, IQ, Academic Performance, and Children's Perception of Safety: Evidence of Protective Effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 52, 2, 264-287. doi:10.1353/mpq.2006.0017 Roark, M. L. (1987). Preventing violence on college campuses. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65(7), 367-370. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328-335. (a) Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 354-385. (b) Rosenstock, I. M. (1990). The health belief model: Explaining health behavior through expectancies, in K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 39-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Saunders, D. G. (1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 336-344. doi:10.1177/088626091006003006 73 Schuh, J. H. (1998). Campus vulnerability. In. A. M. Hoffman, J. H. Schuh & R. H. Fenske (Eds.), Violence on campus: Defining the problems, strategies for action (pp. 17-28). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Security on Campus, Inc . (2008). Congress amends Clery Act in response to Virginia Tech shootings. Retrieved from http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=331%3Acongress-amends-clery-act-in-response-to-virginia-tech shootings&catid =64%3Acleryact&Itemid=56. Sharp, S. R. (2003). Effectiveness of an anger management training program based on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) for middle school students with behavior problems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (10), 3595. (UMI No. 3107682) Singer, M. I., Miller, D. B., Guo, S., Flannery, D. J. Frierson, T. & Slovak, K. (1999). Contributors to violent behavior among elementary and middle school children. Pediatrics, 104(4), 878-884. Slovic, P. Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. (pp. 463-492). New York: Cambridge University Press. StopHazing.org. (n.d.). Hazing defined. Retrieved from http:www.stophazing.org/definition.html Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. U.S. Department of Education, (2005).The handbook for campus crime reporting, Office 74 of Postsecondary Education: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/campus.html. U. S. Department of Education (n. d.) Summary of crime statistics 2005-2007: Criminal offenses. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/criminal2005- 07.pdf. Waits, B. L. & Lunderberg-Love, P. (2008). The impact of campus violence on college students. In M. Pauldi (Ed.), Understanding Violence and Preventing Campus Violence (pp. 51-70). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.39.5.806 Weinstein, N. D. (1983). Reducing unrealistic optimism about illness susceptibility. Health Psychology, 2(1), 11-20. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.2.1.11 Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3(5), 431-457. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.3.5.431 Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232- 1233. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Woolnough, A. (2009). Fear of crime on campus: Gender differences in use of self- protective behaviors at an urban university. Security Journal, 22(1), 40?55. 75 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A-F 76 APPENDIX A CAMPUS SAFETY & PRECAUTIONARY BEHAVIOR SURVEY (CSPBS) PILOT STUDY E-MAIL INVITATION LETTER 77 Dear Students, One of the most prevalent issues children, adolescents and young adults must face in today?s society is school/ campus violence, and it is essential that mental health professionals and college/university administrators continue to pursue awareness, understanding, knowledge and interventions to more effectively prevent campus violence and provide a sense of safety for college students. Pursuant to this aim I am requesting your assistance to pilot an electronic survey that will be used to evaluate the relation of exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary student?s perception of safety and precautionary behaviors. If you would agree to participate, you would be responsible for editing and making comments about each question in the survey. Your help in the pilot study can ensure that the survey instrument is psychometrically sound and reader friendly. The ?Information Sheet? that will explain the specific nature of this research study is located in the link below. The ?Information Sheet? also contains an icon that is an electronic link to the survey, if you wish to participate. I believe that you would agree that expanding the knowledge about school and campus violence is essential to effectively serving college students and will you please join me in this worthwhile endeavor! If you have any questions about this electronic survey or my research, please feel free to contact me at (334) 826-0207 or e-mail at millekn@auburn.edu. You may also contact Dr. Joseph Buckhalt at (334) 844-2875 or e-mail at buckhja@auburn.edu and we will be happy to answer all questions. Thank you for your assistance. CLICK TO READ INFORMATION SHEET: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NJVKG9N Sincerely, Kanessa N. Miller, M.Ed., NCC, Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, & Counseling/School Psychology College of Education Auburn University 78 APPENDIX B CAMPUS SAFETY & PRECAUTIONARY BEHAVIOR SURVEY (CSPBS) E-MAIL INVITATION LETTER 79 Dear Students, The 2010 shooting deaths at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), University of Texas at Austin (UT), and Northern Illinois University (NIU) are examples of one of the most prevalent issues children, adolescents and young adults must face in today?s society. School/ campus violence prevalence and its overall negative impact on society makes it essential that mental health professionals and college/university administrators continue to pursue awareness, understanding, knowledge and interventions to more effectively prevent campus violence and provide a sense of safety for college students. Pursuant to this aim I am requesting your assistance to complete an electronic survey that will be used to evaluate the relation of exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary student?s perception of safety and precautionary behaviors. The ?Information Sheet? that will explain the specific nature of this research study is located in the link below. The ?Information Sheet? also contains an icon that is an electronic link to the survey, if you wish to participate. I believe that you would agree that expanding the knowledge about school and campus violence is essential to effectively serving college students and will you please join me in this worthwhile endeavor! Your input is greatly needed and your contribution to this field of knowledge is will indeed enhance the overall quality of research in this area. If you have any questions about this electronic survey or my research, please feel free to contact me at (334) 826-0207 or e-mail at millekn@auburn.edu. You may also contact Dr. Joseph Buckhalt at (334) 844-2875 or e-mail at buckhja@auburn.edu and we will be happy to answer all questions. Thank you for your assistance. CLICK TO READ INFORMATION SHEET: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XWCR3ZM Sincerely, Kanessa N. Miller, M.Ed., NCC, Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, & Counseling/School Psychology College of Education Auburn University 80 APPENDIX C E-MAIL FOLLOW-UP LETTERS 81 Dear Students, It has been one week since I sent you the e-mail invitation letter with a web-based electronic link to the ?Information Sheet? and Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey (CSPBS) that will be used to evaluate the relation of exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary student?s perception of safety and precautionary behaviors I sincerely appreciate those of you that have completed and submitted the survey. I would sincerely ask those who have not to please participate and help in gather data for this research. Your efforts are very important to the success of this study. Please remember that the goal of this research is to pursue awareness, understanding, knowledge and interventions to more effectively prevent campus violence and provide a sense of safety for college students. If you have any questions about this electronic survey or my research, please feel free to contact me at (334) 826-0207 or e-mail at millekn@auburn.edu. You may also contact Dr. Joseph Buckhalt at (334) 844-2875 or e-mail at buckhja@auburn.edu and we will be happy to answer all questions. Thank you for your assistance. Your cooperation is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Kanessa N. Miller, M.Ed., NCC, Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, & Counseling/School Psychology College of Education Auburn University 82 Dear Students, It has been two weeks since I sent you the e-mail invitation letter with a web-based electronic link to the ?Information Sheet? and Campus Safety & Precautionary Behavior Survey (CSPBS) that will be used to evaluate the relation of exposure to high school and college campus violence to post-secondary student?s perception of safety and precautionary behaviors I would sincerely ask those who have not completed and submitted the survey, if you would please participate and help in conducting this research. If you have forwarded the submitted the completed survey I would really appreciate it, if you would do so as soon as possible due to the low response rate. I understand that you are very busy, but your cooperation is very important to the success of this study. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to become involved and contribute to this study that I hope will benefit all college/university students, administrators, faculty members, parents and communities present and in the future. If you have any questions about this electronic survey or my research, please feel free to contact me at (334) 826-0207 or e-mail at millekn@auburn.edu. You may also contact Dr. Joseph Buckhalt at (334) 844-2875 or e-mail at buckhja@auburn.edu and we will be happy to answer all questions. Thank you for your assistance. Your cooperation is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Kanessa N. Miller, M.Ed., NCC, Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, & Counseling/School Psychology College of Education Auburn University 83 APPENDIX D REQUEST FOR APPROVAL 84 Hello, Kanessa - You have my permission to use and modify my survey instrument and replicate a version of the research related to the Safety Belief Model. Good luck with your dissertation work! I'd love to see a report of the results of your research at whatever point a summary or article is available. Best wishes, Tammy Tammy Lenski, Ed.D. 603.565.2279 | Tammy@Lenski.com | Lenski.com On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kanessa Miller wrote: ** High Priority ** November 3, 2009 Dear Dr. Lenski, I, Kanessa Miller, am a graduate student at Auburn University. I am currently preparing my doctoral dissertation titled ?The Relation of School and Campus Violence to Students? Perceptions of Safety and Precautionary Behaviors.? I have reviewed your Campus Safety Survey instrument and would really appreciate your permission to use/ modify the survey and reproduce your Safety Belief Models figures. I have listed the modification of the survey and attached the new instrument to this email. I removed the following demographic information that was included in the Campus Safety Survey: length of academic program, transfer student status, Greek member status, self-reported grade point average, location of permanent residence, population density of permanent residence and socioeconomic status I added the following demographic information to the survey: name of respondent?s college, college residential status (on campus or off-campus) and high school graduation year. I added a violence exposure component to the enabling factors divided into two variables: high school and college campus violence exposure. The high school violence scale include questions about whether or not 85 the respondent has been exposed to several types of violent acts at high school and their perceptions of how the high school violence exposure influenced their perception of safety on their college campus. The college violence scale will also include whether or not the respondent has been exposed to various types of possible violent encounters at college and the respondent rates how the exposure to violence influences their perception of safety on campus. I really appreciate your time and consideration. Please contact me via email at millekn@auburn.edu, if you have any questions concerning my request. Sincerely, Kanessa Miller, M.Ed., NCC 86 APPENDIX E CAMPUS SAFETY & PRECAUTIONARY BEHAVIOR SURVEY (CSPBS) PILOT STUDY 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 APPENDIX F CAMPUS SAFETY & PRECAUTIONARY BEHAVIOR SURVEY (CSPBS) 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113