{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01729559748427673, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.179611650485437, '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}}
Rational Fear or Represented Malaise: A Crucial Test of Two Paradigms Explaining Fear of Crime

In explanations offered for fear of crime, two different paradigms can be distinguished. The first considers fear of crime as a rational reaction to crime and victimization; the other views such fear as a representation of more general feelings of malaise. The paradigms suggest different research strategies and offer different explanations for the same empirical observations. The choice of paradigm therefore determines the meaning of the empirical findings and hence the policy implications that can be drawn from them. In this article, the authors describe the paradigms, illustrate the way in which they offer different explanations for the same observations, and try to empirically discriminate between them on the basis of crucial tests. The tests are performed on data for the Flemish (Belgian) population aged nineteen to thirty-six. The results support the view that fear of crime or feelings of insecurity should be seen mainly as a consequence of, on one hand, general feelings of malaise, vulnerability, and helplessness that can have many origins and, on the other hand, exposure to processes of communication that highlight crime and the risk of victimization.