{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011152416356877323, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3352941176470585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perceptions of disorder, risk and safety: The method and framing effects

Abstract Several research studies have argued that people evaluate incivilities of places as part of the process of estimating how safe they might be. The study presented here examined whether such an assumption is upheld when people are allowed to express their thoughts about places before rating how disordered a place seems to them. British students evaluated three residential areas with different levels of disorder. First, participants had to write their impressions about the places and then rate how disordered, risky and unsafe the places seemed to them. The qualitative analysis showed that despite participants referred to physical disorder, only few participants mentioned crime and safety. Results from the quantitative analysis revealed that as the more disordered a place was rated the more unsafe it was considered. Findings suggest both that disordered places not always elicit unsafe concerns and that the so predicted relationship between disorder and safety maybe method dependant.